Oral Answers to Questions

Defence
	 — 
	NATO Capabilities

Brian Jenkins: What progress has been made to improve defence capabilities among NATO countries.

Geoff Hoon: NATO's defence capabilities initiative, launched at the Washington summit in 1999, has made good progress in a number of areas. To continue this progress, a new initiative—the Prague capabilities commitment, or PCC—was launched at the Prague summit on 21 and 22 November, focusing on improvements in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defence, information superiority, combat-effectiveness, and deployability and sustainability. Allies have made firm political commitments to improve their capabilities in each of those areas.

Brian Jenkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, particularly the part about the expansion of the capabilities of our NATO allies, but we have heard all of it before. We heard it at the end of the Washington summit. What is the vital difference between the Washington proposals and the Prague proposals, and can my right hon. Friend assure us that the capabilities and capacities of our NATO allies will match our record?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Geoff Hoon: I am pleased to see my hon. Friend receiving so much support.
	The Washington defence capabilities initiative was an important step in the transformation of NATO, but I agree that, with hindsight, it could be considered too broad a programme. In the run-up to Prague, therefore, the United Kingdom argued consistently that any successor initiative should have a narrow focus with clear objectives, backed by high-level ownership. The Prague capabilities commitment is a good package that will focus nations on providing the capabilities necessary for the alliance to perform the full range of its missions.

Crispin Blunt: Given that Germany's Social Democratic Government have completely lost control of the economy, what message does the Secretary of State have for his counterpart in that Government about the defence cuts that they have just announced?

Geoff Hoon: I have had some excellent conversations with my German counterpart. No doubt the Ministry of Defence was able to draw on its experience under Conservative control, when defence budgets were cut successively. Given the healthy economic circumstances enjoyed in the United Kingdom, I was able to make it clear to my German counterpart that extra resources were available for defence in the UK, and he looked forward to the day when that would be the case in Germany as well.

Jim Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the conditions imposed by the economic stability pact may make it more difficult for NATO countries that are also members of the European Union's single currency to increase their defence expenditure and thus improve their defence capability?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer that question at Treasury questions, but I think it would be much more sensible of me to avoid answering it.

Bernard Jenkin: After an entertaining start, may I press the Secretary of State on the subject of one capability that all NATO countries need to improve—preparedness for a major terrorist attack at home? There is clear evidence of a threat, and leaked documents from the Government seem to admit that civil defence Xeffectively no longer exists". What has the Secretary of State achieved in his Department in regard to civil defence since 11 September last year?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that civil defence is primarily the responsibility of the United Kingdom's civil authorities, certainly in respect of protection of its territory and jurisdiction on land. He and other Members will know of the significant changes proposed by the Ministry of Defence in the new chapter—the policy document supplement—to the existing strategic defence review. As for threats from the air and at sea, the Ministry of Defence remains responsible. We have ensured that our defences are commensurate with the nature of the threat that we face, particularly since the appalling events of 11 September.

Bernard Jenkin: I presume that the Secretary of State is referring to the document that I have here, XThe Role of the Reserves in Home Defence and Security", which was produced nine months after 11 September. Is he aware of the answers that his right hon. Friend the Minister of State has been giving about the civil contingency reaction forces? On 25 November, he stated
	XThe training plans for the Civil Contingency Reaction Forces are still being developed . . . We expect that the 14 Civil Contingency Reaction Forces will be fully effective by the end of 2003"—[Official Report, 25 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 3-4W.]
	Is the issue being treated with the urgency that it seriously deserves?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that no civil contingency plans existed before the appalling events of 11 September. Clearly there were such plans. What we seek to do is upgrade and improve those preparations, specifically in the light of what took place on that date.

Tam Dalyell: What has been done in the past couple of months to deal with talcum-like sand penetrating into the sophisticated mechanical systems and instrumentation of Challenger 2 tanks?

Geoff Hoon: As I said to the House a couple of weeks ago, a contract has been let for the desertification of the Challenger 2 tank and that work is proceeding at some speed.

Julian Brazier: On the subject of capabilities, will the Secretary of State confirm that, even after the various financial changes that he has mentioned, the percentage of GDP that this country will spend on defence next year will be significantly lower than it was when the Government took office, despite 11 September?

Geoff Hoon: Thanks to questions asked by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who speaks for the Conservative party on the Front Bench, I examined carefully a number of statistics relating to the amount of expenditure. There were periods during the Conservatives' control of defence when the percentage was higher, but equally there were periods when it was lower.

BAE Systems

Gordon Marsden: What discussions his Department has had with BAE Systems about the maintenance of (a) aerostructure and (b) other manufacturing business in the UK.

Lewis Moonie: BAE Systems is the Ministry of Defence's single largest supplier. Both the MOD and the Department of Trade and Industry have frequent dialogue with the company concerning existing and future programmes as well as the company's strategic plans.

Gordon Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he understand the concern of my constituents and others who work for BAE Systems in the north-west that its proposed sell-off of the aerostructures division will mean the loss of a pool of some 400 skilled workers, who are potentially key to the defence business in terms of flexibility and extra capacity? Does he recognise that a company that has benefited from some hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money for orders needs to have a clearer focus on what its future core structure of business will be and what its strategy is? Many of us believe that it is becoming rather woolly.

Lewis Moonie: I am well aware of the change in the company's strategy. Its aerostructures business is successful and viable; it has a substantial order book. To divest the aerostructures business was a commercial decision for the company to make, and it has said that there are no current plans to fragment the business. Any discussions with interested parties will consider the business as a whole. I assure my hon. Friend that we will be keeping a very close eye on what is happening.

Michael Jack: In the light of the current uncertainties in BAE, the biggest employer in my constituency, can the Minister confirm that, notwithstanding the sad loss of DA6, one of the pre-production prototypes of Eurofighter, the Government remain utterly, totally and completely committed to what is a vital source of manufacturing work, and that they will buy all 232 of those aircraft? What work is he doing to ensure that BAE benefits from further export orders for the Hawk aircraft?

Lewis Moonie: On the latter point, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, we are working hard, as we have done continuously, to try to help the company to secure orders for Hawk abroad. We are also working with it on the development of a new variant of the aircraft, potentially for our own future training requirement. With regard to Typhoon, I repeat the assurances that have been repeatedly given in the House. The order currently stands at the number that the right hon. Gentleman has quoted and will remain so. The crash of the prototype was most unfortunate, but the aircraft remains on course to come into service when we expect it to.

Lindsay Hoyle: The Minister is rightly spelling out commitments to BAE Systems and to the north-west. Within that, can we ensure that the advanced jet trainer will come on stream and that that contract will be let to BAE Systems? Obviously, the aerostructures business is very important. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that he continues the dialogue to ensure that those jobs remain in the north-west and are not transferred?

Lewis Moonie: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are continuing to discuss our future training requirements closely with British Aerospace. The contract will have to be competed for but we hope that the company will carry on doing sterling work for us. Again, we will be keeping a very close eye on what is going on in the business to ensure that our interests in the north-west are not adversely affected.

John Wilkinson: Can the Minister tell the House whether he has had a discussion with British Aerospace, as a partner in the Airbus consortium, on the effect of the German Government's announcement that they are to reduce their intended order from 73 airframes to 60? Will that significantly increase the price to the Royal Air Force, which Her Majesty's Government have decided should order some 25 airframes?

Lewis Moonie: We are continuing to discuss the implications of the German decision on the contract, but our current expectation is that there will be no major changes in the unit price for us.

Kevin McNamara: My hon. Friend mentioned the new arrangements for the Hawk, which his Department and BAE Systems are discussing. There will be 450 redundancies on the north and south banks of the Humber as a result of dithering in the swapping of information, either by his Department or by BAE Systems management. Can he tell the House when he hopes those discussions will conclude; whether he will maintain the Government's intention to purchase this aircraft, and in the numbers that he said; and what steps he and his Department will take to try to alleviate the Christmas misery of 450 families on Humberside?

Lewis Moonie: I have to say to my hon. Friend that it is for BAE Systems to determine its staffing levels. The job losses that he describes result from its failure to secure a number of orders—not just from the MOD—in what is a highly competitive market. I know that the claim has been made that the MOD is taking too long to reach a decision on the Hawk 128. Choosing an advanced jet training aircraft that will probably remain in service for at least 25 years is not a simple matter. The decision will be made at the earliest practicable moment, but it should not—and will not—be taken lightly. We need to be sure that the aircraft that we choose is the best available platform on which to train the pilots of a highly sophisticated new generation of combat aircraft that has yet to come into service.

Nuclear Security

David Rendel: What steps he has taken since 11 September 2001 to secure from air attack sites at which (a) research into and (b) maintenance of nuclear weapons takes place.

Adam Ingram: In the interests of maintaining effective protection, it would be inappropriate to go into too much detail, although I can assure the House that a number of protective measures have been taken. For example, the number of aircraft on immediate stand-by for quick reaction alert—QRA—duties has been doubled from two to four. Also, measures have been taken to enhance our air defence radar detection capability and command-and-control processes, and to provide facilities for QRA aircraft at alternative air stations to increase operational flexibility.

David Rendel: I understand that after 11 September, the French decided to introduce anti-aircraft missiles around at least one of their sites, but have since decided to reverse that policy. Have the British Government considered any such policy, and if so why have they decided against it? Would they reconsider that policy if there were a specific threat to a specific site?

Adam Ingram: We considered the French's actions and their change of posture at the time, and decided that it was not appropriate for us for a number of reasons, but primarily because once such weapons are deployed, one has to consider when to remove them. We will keep this issue under review at all times, and if a specific threat arose, appropriate action would clearly be taken.

Keith Simpson: The Minister has rightly emphasised the seriousness of this situation and the potential threat. Can he tell the House how many sites are concerned with research into nuclear matters, and in how many such sites nuclear weapons are in place? Secondly, is the Minister saying that the air defence system has been activated and is sufficient to deal with an immediate air attack on one or other of the many sites, or that it will be up and running within the next three to six months?

Adam Ingram: I missed the latter part of that question, but I should point out that a number of such sites exist, according to the different types of priority that could be allocated. However, that could change over time. Although a particular number might exist today, if a specific threat were posed to another site—if we received information that it had been designated for terrorist action—it would be added to that number. However, it is not a numbers game; it is question of the quality of our response at all times. We have put in place very good protective measures in terms of the QRA response covering the wider country. Over time, more airfields will be made available—the three other airfields will be modified to be able to take those aircraft so that we can give a quicker response time and aircraft can be moved accordingly.
	These are very sensitive and difficult issues to balance because of the nature of the threat. It can be specific but it can also be general, and it can change. Therefore, we must at all times keep all these matters under constant review based on the best intelligence, always remembering that intelligence is never perfect.

Missile Defence

Hugh Bayley: When he last discussed strategic missile defence with his NATO counterparts.

Geoff Hoon: NATO Defence Ministers last discussed missile defence formally in June 2002. At the recent NATO summit in Prague on 21 November, NATO Heads of Government agreed to examine options for addressing the increasing missile threat to alliance territory, forces and population centres through an appropriate mix of political and defence efforts.
	As I promised the House on 17 October, I have today placed further analytical and discussion material in the Library of the House which I hope will contribute to the debate on the role that active missile defence might play within a comprehensive strategy for tackling the potential threat from ballistic missiles. The paper will also be distributed widely and will be available on the Ministry of Defence website.

Hugh Bayley: Many of my constituents and other people in Yorkshire are concerned about the potential implications of missile defence. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, unlike the Conservatives, who seem willing to embrace missile defence almost without question, the Government will make sure that their discussion document is widely circulated so that they can proceed with a thorough and careful consideration of the arguments for and against in the light of views expressed by members of the public?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations and delighted to give him that assurance on behalf of the Government. As I told the House on 17 October, if there is a United States request for the use for missile defence purposes of Fylingdales or any other United Kingdom facility, we will consider it seriously. The Government would agree to such a request only if the security of the United Kingdom and the alliance would ultimately be enhanced.

Paul Keetch: I welcome the document that the Secretary of State has produced today and thank him for the advance notice of it. However, I should like to press him on the principles to which he has just alluded. Can he assure the House that the UK will not participate in any missile defence scheme or allow facilities to be used on UK soil unless it enhances the security of the United Kingdom and, moreover, enhances the security of all the alliance, not just specific members of it?

Geoff Hoon: I have said this on a number of occasions, but it bears repetition, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me the opportunity of saying again that the Government would agree to such a request only if the security of the United Kingdom and the alliance would ultimately be enhanced. On the second part of his question, it is important to bear in mind what I said on 17 October. The United States is developing a test bed—the means whereby it can examine the appropriate kind of architecture that might ultimately be required. In those circumstances, it is not possible to give the hon. Gentleman precisely the assurance that he requires because the United States is not yet in a position to do that.

Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will know from his geography lessons that my constituency is a quarter of a mile from RAF Fylingdales. I wrote to him welcoming his statement on 17 October and also invited him to participate at the earliest possible opportunity in a local public debate with people in Whitby and the Esk valley. In the light of the welcome publication of his document today, could he offer that facility to my constituents so that they can understand what is affecting this important issue? In that way, we can ensure that our part of the world, along with our colleagues in NATO, is included in the debate.

Geoff Hoon: I have had the opportunity of visiting both RAF Fylingdales and my hon. Friend's constituency, and I look forward to the opportunity of doing so again.

Malcolm Savidge: As missile defence is not a priority according to the MOD's previous White Paper, to the present and previous Chiefs of the Defence Staff and to the national intelligence estimates of the US Congress post-11 September, can my right hon. Friend reassure us that the document that has just been made available is not evidence that Government policy is being dictated less by intelligence and British interests than by the ideological obsessions of the Bush Administration, with Opposition Front-Bench Members seeking to be more servilely subservient?

Geoff Hoon: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that Opposition Front-Bench Members are not influencing the nature of the Government's policy in this area. It is none the less important, on the occasions when my hon. Friend and I have the opportunity to debate these matters, that he consider the current evidence rather than some of the historical evidence.

Future Aircraft Carrier

Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the future aircraft carrier project.

Lewis Moonie: The future aircraft carrier—carrier vessel future—project is progressing well. The second stage of assessment ended on 20 November. By the end of January 2003, we plan to announce which, of BAE Systems or Thales Naval Ltd., is our preferred contractor for the programme.

Ben Chapman: Although I of course congratulate the Government on the biggest shipbuilding programme since world war two, this project in particular has the potential for massive effects for decades to come. In selecting the prime contractor, will my hon. Friend tell me how he plans to weigh various factors, such as the effect on future warship exports, on the United Kingdom supply chain and UK subcontractors and on UK design capability and the extent of UK content and jobs?

Lewis Moonie: I suppose the short answer would be Xvery carefully," but my hon. Friend will want a bit more than that.
	Whichever of the contractors is successful, it is clear that throughout its design and manufacture the programme will sustain and create about 10,000 jobs across the United Kingdom. There will be up to 1,000 white-collar engineering design and managerial jobs, about 2,000 to 3,000 blue-collar jobs and a significant number of jobs throughout the supply chain. At the end of the day, the decision will be made on the basis of the track record of the two companies concerned—on how successfully they have performed in the past and are performing during the initial stages of the contract.

Mike Hancock: I am grateful to the Minister for his earlier response, but can he give a firm assurance that the Government will be able to write into the contract of the successful contender the insistence that all the yards currently in the bids will be given parts of the work for the two carriers? Can he also assure the House that the three aircraft currently designated to fly off the ships will be in service when the ships are in the water?

Lewis Moonie: We are actually quite a long way from the ships being in the water and I am always a wee bit sceptical when Ministers stand up and make confident predictions, but it would appear from the success on both projects to date that the planes will be ready when the ships are operational.
	With regard to the yards bidding, it is difficult at present to say with certainty that everybody will get a share of the work. Obviously a certain amount of competition will be involved in deciding which part goes where. Furthermore, it does not take a genius to work out that if there are only three major sections and four yards are bidding, somebody will lose out at the end of the day. I can say, however, that I believe that all yards in this country that are capable of building those large modules will have a very good chance of securing work on the carriers.

Syd Rapson: Although it is MOD policy that the design and build of all Royal Navy warships will be carried out in the UK, can my hon. Friend reassure the House by guaranteeing that the through-life support, which will last for 50 years, will also be carried out in the UK?

Lewis Moonie: In short, yes.

Typhoon

Jonathan Djanogly: When the Typhoon will enter service.

Adam Ingram: As was made clear in the written statement last week, we do not now expect Typhoon to enter service until the end of June next year. This schedule takes account of the disruption to test flying following the unfortunate loss of a development aircraft in Spain last month, but, until the causes and implications of the crash are fully understood, we cannot rule out further delay. I can assure the House that we will do everything possible to prevent any delay to the aircraft's operational employment date scheduled for the second half of the decade.

Jonathan Djanogly: I hear what the Minister has to say, but whereas the Eurofighter project will be delivered some four and a half years late, I read at the weekend that the German and Italian air forces are taking delivery of their planes in the next few weeks. Why is that the case? Is it another example of how the Government are undermining British forces' equipment?

Adam Ingram: The best advice that I could give the hon. Gentleman is that he should not believe everything that he reads in The Sunday Telegraph, because the article in question was wholly inaccurate. The position was made clear in last Thursday's written ministerial statement. None of the four nations involved in the Typhoon programme can take delivery of the aircraft before the type acceptance and associated commercial process is complete. All four nations are unanimous in the view that the aircraft must meet the agreed specification before acceptance of the weapon system can take place. So the hon. Gentleman should not believe what appears in the press the day before Defence questions because it is usually spin from someone and, in this case, it was wholly wrong.

Harry Cohen: What is the Government's policy towards the sale of such aircraft to countries in the middle east? Does the aerospace industry need bribery, corruption and excessive secrecy to sell such aircraft? What about the reports of the #7 million slush fund—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too wide.

Gerald Howarth: The fact is that the Government announced only in February this year that this aircraft would enter service in June this year, yet we are now told, XFor June 2002, read June 2003." It looks as though the Government are losing their grip on this programme. Although we understand that there are some technical difficulties with the aircraft, I suspect that the Minister has not been entirely correct in what he has just told the House about the crash influencing the programme, because his written statement on Thursday said:
	Xwe have concluded with our international partners and with industry that the evidence required to permit contractual acceptance of the aircraft by the four partner nations will not be complete before the end of March 2003 . . . aircraft should then be ready for hand-over to Royal Air Force by the end of June 2003."
	He went on to say:
	XFurther delay"—
	that is to say beyond 2003—
	Xcannot be ruled out until the causes and implications of the crash are fully understood."—[Official Report, 5 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 84WS.]
	Does the Minister not owe it to the House to tell us whether June 2003 is now a realistic prospect? Bearing in mind that 5 Squadron, with its Tornados, is about to be disbanded, we will not be prepared for the possible attacks on this country, about which the Government know only too well.

Adam Ingram: Of course the hon. Gentleman indicated in his question his knowledge that technical matters are associated with the delay. They may well be minor, but, cumulatively, they still have to be resolved. We have a duty of care to those who will fly the aircraft and all four partner nations have to operate under the same strictures to ensure that what we have is fit for purpose. The unfortunate accident involving the loss of the development aircraft now has to be studied. With that in mind, based on the other reasons for slippage in some of the technical and design issues that have had to be resolved, we have said that by March the company has to give us indications, which then have to be verified, and we are working to June next year. That commitment is as firm as it can be given the complex nature of the platform.

Afghanistan

Nick Palmer: If he will make a statement on military support for the Government of Afghanistan.

Adam Ingram: The international security assistance force, mandated by the United Nations, provides support to the transitional Administration of President Karzai in Kabul and the immediate surroundings. The United Kingdom was the initial lead ISAF nation, and continues to be a major troop contributor. The Germans and Dutch have offered to assume the joint role of lead nation after Turkey's successful time in command. The United Kingdom anticipates remaining a significant contributor to ISAF, at about the current levels, through the current mandate.

Nick Palmer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. During the intervention in Afghanistan, which I strongly supported, the Prime Minister stressed that we would not let Afghanistan down later. I am concerned to read reports that the writ of the Government in Afghanistan still does not reach much further than the area around Kabul, and that Mr. Karzai is forced to negotiate with warlords on quite small matters. Does the Minister feel that we are doing enough to reinforce the Government of Afghanistan in asserting their rule over the country?

Adam Ingram: The UK has pledged some #200 million over the next five years to help rebuild a country that has been divided by conflict for a generation. We are only one of the contributor nations to that process. Clearly, in terms of expanding our areas of activity outside Kabul, those matters must be considered with other coalition partners to see what can reasonably be done and to give best effect. We are not unmindful of the issues that have been raised. As with everything relating to the initial deployment in that country, however, we must build that coalition of the willing. A change to any posture must be carefully balanced, and we must make sure that anything that is done has proper and full effect.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for his earlier answer. There are 300 or so staff officers and specialists tied up in Afghanistan at the moment. May I congratulate the Minister on the deployment of 40 or so territorials? What further plans does he have to increase the territorial commitment to Afghanistan, thus easing our overstretched regulars, and, to paraphrase Sir Michael Boyce, helping not to get our hands stuck in the mangle any further?

Adam Ingram: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is asking for more activity in Afghanistan or less. I am not clear where he is coming from. I think that I said earlier that we have a firm commitment to help rebuild that country. Every rebuilding exercise, as I also explained, must be done in partnership with other nations to be fully effective. Our approach to those issues must be built over time with the right depth and breadth.
	On the question of the Territorial Army, I do not accept that its deployment is for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave. It is appropriate to use the TA in circumstances in which that can be done. That is a useful development, and I know that the TA will seize the opportunity and perform magnificently in that area and in that theatre, as it would anywhere else.

Chris McCafferty: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the numerous appeals from the President of the transitional Administration and key Ministers in Afghanistan for an expansion of ISAF. Certainly, when I went to Afghanistan recently on an International Development Committee visit, numerous representations were made to members of the Committee on this issue, particularly in relation to an expansion to key cities outside Kabul. It was suggested to us that if defence remains purely in the Kabul area, there was a danger that the President would be seen merely as the mayor of Kabul, which was the description given. That would not be helpful in terms of support for the new Administration in Afghanistan. Will the Minister assure the House that that will be given careful consideration?

Adam Ingram: I can give that assurance, and I think that my earlier answer indicated that we are considering a number of ways of doing that. Ultimately, it is for the Government of Afghanistan to begin to address their territorial issues. We can assist, but we cannot be the army of that nation for ever. That must come from the people of that country. We help in the training of the army there, too, so that it can take on an increasing role in relation to an ongoing problem that my hon. Friend was right to highlight.

Iraq

David Chaytor: What requests he has received from the United States Government for the use of British military facilities in respect of preparations for military action in Iraq.

Geoff Hoon: As I told the House on 25 November, the United States approached a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, seeking support in the event that military action against Iraq proves necessary. Although no decision has been taken to commit UK forces to military action, we have responded to this approach and discussions with the US will continue so that an appropriate British contribution can be identified should it prove necessary. As the House would expect, we will continue to prepare our forces so that they will be able to participate in military action should that be required.

David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is still an amount of uncertainty about both the objectives and the consequences of a war in Iraq? Is it solely about weapons of mass destruction? Is it about human rights? Is it about democracy in the middle east? Is it about regime change? Is it part of the war against terror and, if so, is it likely to increase or decrease the terrorist threat?

Geoff Hoon: I do not agree with my hon. Friend about uncertainty. The Government have made it absolutely clear over a long period that we want to ensure that the will of the United Nations is enforced and that UN Security Council resolution 1441 is implemented. That is the Government's position, and it is a very clear one.

Julian Lewis: The Secretary of State has rightly acknowledged that, if there is military action against Iraq, British military facilities will be made available to our American allies. However, we have also heard in answer to questions by my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench that the civil contingencies reaction force will not be available until the end of 2003 to deal with a terrorist attack on this country, that the Typhoon aircraft will not be available until well into 2003 to deal with, among other things, a terrorist attack on this country and that there appear to be no anti-missile defences around nuclear power stations to deal with a terrorist attack on this country. Will appropriate measures be taken at least to protect British military facilities, which may soon be in a state of war, against a terrorist attack against this country?

Geoff Hoon: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench. I cannot help but observe that the Opposition Front-Bench team requires more by way of numbers than the Government team. The Opposition obviously required reinforcements from the rear.
	I assure the hon. Gentleman that the capabilities of the United Kingdom's armed forces will be prepared and available to deal with any military contingency however it should arise. It is not appropriate for me to go into the precise detail of confidential exchanges between Governments, but I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that appropriate protective measures will be in place should military action be decided on.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that there is in this country enormous public opposition to the preparations for war against Iraq and to the use of British bases for it? The feeling is that a war against Iraq will result in a large number of civilian and military casualties in Iraq and in military casualties on all sides. It will do nothing to bring long-term peace to the region and do nothing to solve the Palestinian crisis but will ultimately work in the interests of American global and military power and American commercial power in the region. Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is time to stop and think a bit more about this?

Geoff Hoon: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are very cautious and careful in their approach to these issues and that, notwithstanding what he says, my experience is that, after having travelled around the United Kingdom and participating in a number of meetings where the issue has arisen, there is absolute unanimity that it is necessary that the will of the United Nations should be enforced. That is the clarity of the Government's position as set out in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), and it continues to be the position. It is crucial that Saddam Hussein should be left in no doubt that the international community is absolutely determined that he should comply with UN Security Council resolution 1441. I have not heard anyone argue against that position.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Are there any circumstances in which further American military action would not be accompanied by British forces?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to give such an open-ended commitment. I can say that the United States is the closest ally of the United Kingdom, and we work extremely closely with it on the planning and preparation of all military operations.

Alice Mahon: Do we have any special forces operating in Iraq at the moment? Is it true that some minesweepers are on their way to the Gulf? If so, for what purpose?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is an experienced Member of the House and will know that no member of the Government ever comments on the deployment of special forces. I assure her that no military decisions whatsoever have been taken on military action against Iraq. That situation will be reported to the House should it change.

Missile Defence

Robert Syms: Which (a) current and (b) planned British military facilities and equipment could contribute to missile defence.

Geoff Hoon: The United States Administration have yet to make specific decisions about the precise future architecture of a United States missile defence system. However, as I told the House on 17 October, the US missile defence programme is gathering momentum, and there are plans to develop and evaluate options for a basic missile defence system. In that context, the United States has indicated that one of the options it is considering would involve an upgrade of the early warning radar at Fylingdales. We will consider any such request seriously and will agree to it only if we are satisfied that the overall security of the United Kingdom and the alliance will ultimately be enhanced.

Robert Syms: Why are we being so timid? There is no doubt that the US will make such a request. The Government seem more concerned about opinion on their Back Benches than with doing the right thing for Britain.

Geoff Hoon: Over many years I have found it fairly sensible to answer questions only once they have been asked.

Service Leavers

Shona McIsaac: What steps his Department is taking to support personnel when they leave the armed forces.

Lewis Moonie: The key elements of support for service personnel when they leave the armed forces are provided under the career transition partnership, which provides resettlement support for service leavers through nine regional resettlement centres within the United Kingdom, one in Germany, plus an office in Kathmandu specifically for the Gurkhas, and a resettlement training centre at Aldershot. It includes the job finding services of the regular forces employment association and the officers association as sub-contractors.

Shona McIsaac: Although it is some time since my father left the Royal Navy after 25 years service, I know that many people who leave the armed forces find it difficult to obtain housing. Indeed, there are press reports about some of them becoming rough sleepers. What assurances can my hon. Friend give that the projects he mentions take into account social issues as well as issues of employment?

Lewis Moonie: I am well aware of the sterling service that my hon. Friend's father gave to the armed forces when he served in the Royal Navy. On rough sleepers, she may be aware that we have taken a great deal of interest in, and spent a great deal of time, effort and money on that problem over the past couple of years. We have certainly had a major effect. We have developed living spaces and work closely with other Departments. Indeed, I was up in Richmond the week before last, opening a new facility that involves, I think, 13 bed spaces for people leaving our armed forces.
	We must remember that 25,000 people a year pass out of the armed forces. The vast majority go into full-time employment and have no problems resettling into the community, as we would expect from such excellent individuals. It is imperative to ensure that the transition is properly managed so that all those who leave have the same advantages.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Pension provision is obviously a major factor in retirement for personnel from the armed forces. Is the Minister aware that part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment have no pension provision despite the fact that they are on constant active service as members of the home service battalions of that regiment? What plans does the Ministry of Defence have to make pension provision for them?

Lewis Moonie: This, of course, also applies to the Territorial Army. A review of pensions policy is being carried out, which we expect to report in the near future. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall keep a close eye on these matters. However, it is not that easy to make provision for part-timers.

Peter Viggers: While most service personnel benefit enormously in terms of fitness and confidence from their time in the armed forces, a significant number need extra and significant support. Is the Minister aware that the record in the UK does not compare favourably with the record in the United States, where it is said that if it puts its boys and girls in harm's way, it will do anything to ensure that they are safeguarded after their service? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is not good enough to leave the matter to charities? We would like to see a much more determined initiative from the Government.

Lewis Moonie: The situation in the United Kingdom, with the national health service, is very different from that which pertains in the United States of America. I would refute any suggestion that the care given to people in this country is in any way inferior to that given in any other country.
	Having said that, we are always concerned to ensure that the services given to those leaving the armed forces are improved. I am working closely with colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure that that happens and that people get the treatment to which they are entitled.

Arctic Convoy Medal

Andrew Dismore: What his policy is on the award of a medal to those who served on Arctic convoys during the second world war.

Lewis Moonie: Service on the Arctic convoys during the second world war is covered by the Atlantic Star, which specifically included in its eligibility criteria service in Arctic waters.

Andrew Dismore: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that there is a precedent for an award of a medal after such a long delay. The sailors of Nelson's navy had to wait up to 56 years for a decision over their medals. If the bureaucrats, after decades, could finally do their duty by the heroes of Trafalgar, why cannot the bureaucrats of today, after a similar delay, do their duty by the heroes of the Barents sea and the Arctic convoys.

Lewis Moonie: No one disputes the heroism of those who took part in the Arctic convoys. At the end of the second world war, the qualifying criteria for the range of medals instituted to recognise second world war service were drawn up by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals, which is known usually as the HD Committee, which advises the sovereign on all matters relating to honours and awards. The Committee took great care with the qualifying criteria of all the campaign medals and stars before submitting them to the King for his approval. The King approved the proposals and ruled that no further medals should be instituted for second world war service. That ruling remains in force today and there are currently no plans to institute any new medals or to amend the qualifying criteria of any existing medals.

Nick Hawkins: I thank the Minister for his and his officials' assistance, which he will recall arose because one of my constituents had not previously been awarded a decoration because of ill health failing a claim being made earlier. The Minister was very helpful and an award has now been made. I agree entirely with what he has said about the heroism of those who served on the Arctic convoys and the appreciation given to those who, like the constituent to whom I have referred, served in supporting the forces in Russia by the work that they did on the Arctic convoys, which has been very much recognised by Russian authorities in recent years.

Lewis Moonie: Yes. I underscore again that the fact that there is not an individual medal for service on the Arctic convoys does not in any way lower the respect that we feel for those who served or gave their lives in the course of that action during the second world war.

Reservists

Paul Goodman: How many reservists are deployed on operations.

Hugo Swire: How many reservists are deployed on operations.

Adam Ingram: As at 1 November 2002, 605 reservists were called out and deployed on operations.

Paul Goodman: As the Army and the Navy now train and mobilise their reservists at the centre and the Royal Air Force does not, will the Minister tell us when he will bring the RAF in with the other two services to co-ordinate their efforts fully and stop wasting taxpayers' money?

Adam Ingram: I do not have a specific date for that. However, I am not so sure that there is a waste of money. There is an individual service approach, and over time harmonisation on a tri-service basis is constantly developed. Sometimes it is easy and sometimes it is not. I am sorry, but I do not have a precise date.

Hugo Swire: Many of the reservists who have been compulsorily mobilised recently are highly paid civilian specialists whose skills are much needed by the armed forces. Does the Minister accept that if he wants the help of such people he must compensate them properly? If so, will he tell the House why to date he has been reluctant to pay realistic sums from the reserve hardship award?

Adam Ingram: We always keep those matters under review.

Jenny Tonge: Will the Minister tell the House how many reservists are employed as doctors and nurses in the national health service, and what the effect on NHS personnel would be if we went to war with Iraq?

Adam Ingram: I understand that about 420 doctors and 2,000 nurses are employed, but those are approximate figures. I shall get precise figures and write to the hon. Lady accordingly.

Territorial Army

Andrew Selous: What changes there have been in the strength of the Territorial Army in the last six months.

Lewis Moonie: I think that we have missed out question 13, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, we have not. It has been unstarred.

Lewis Moonie: My apologies, Mr. Speaker—some people can be too smart.
	As at 1 November 2002, the strength of the Territorial Army stood at 39,370, and on 1 May 2002 it was 39,125.

Andrew Selous: Can the Minister tell the House what specific steps the Government are taking to recruit ex-regular personnel to the TA?

Lewis Moonie: I cannot think of any specific steps, but a great many ex-regulars go into the TA and, by and large, provided that they were honourably discharged, are welcome because of the experience that they bring with them. However, I am happy to look at that, to see if more encouragement can be given. As part of the developing work under the new chapter, we are looking at increasing the number of people in the Territorial Army in particular—it would be useful to encourage as many people as possible to join.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As far as I am aware, question 13, which I tabled, was not unstarred. Can you provide clarification?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard my statement on 19 November. When an hon. Member volunteers a question—I did not ask the hon. Gentleman to do anything, but his name was called—I automatically unstar his question on the Order Paper. The trick is therefore not to rise for an earlier question.

Defence Fire Service

John Grogan: If he will make a statement on the defence fire service.

Angus Robertson: Whether the Government intend to continue with the privatisation of the defence fire service.

Adam Ingram: The defence fire service continues to provide excellent support for the activities of the Ministry of Defence. Its responsibilities include the protection of defence assets, support for military operational capability, expert advice on fire-risk management and the provision of personnel for operations and exercises worldwide. Also at present it is providing vital support to those members of the armed forces engaged as emergency cover during the firefighters' dispute.
	XFire Study 2000", a major review of the defence fire service, has recently been completed and is expected to propose a number of initiatives for modernising the defence fire service. The result of XFire Study 2000" will be used to inform the public sector comparator for the airfield support services project, which is a separate but complementary work stream that is seeking the most cost-effective and viable solution for the provision of airfield support services.

John Grogan: Given that Mr. Ed Balls, no less, has said that there is a limit to the application of market principles to the delivery of public services, and given that the defence fire service trade unions have agreed a radical modernisation package that will reduce in-house costs by 20 per cent., does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Government to abandon any privatisation proposals, which the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has said cross the line of acceptable private sector involvement in public service delivery?

Adam Ingram: I am not going to respond to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), but I shall reply to my hon. Friend, who has been raising this issue for a number of months. Indeed, he secured an Adjournment debate on the matter in November last year, when the precise way in which the proposals are developing was set out. He is right that XFire Study 2000" is an important in-depth analysis of the way in which we can make best use of existing resources, and I hope that he accepts that the Government should always look at best value in the delivery of the service overall. It would be wrong for any Minister, given the opportunities that may exist, to minimise the best value approach. As I told my hon. Friend during his Adjournment debate, we have to treat every penny as if it were a pound.

Angus Robertson: A few weeks ago a very senior RAF officer told me and a number of other Members of Parliament that he thought that there was a good chance that the airfield support services project might fail, although there could be an ASSP minus a privatised defence fire service. Does the Minister believe that the officer is misinformed or that the House is under-informed?

Adam Ingram: I do not know who the officer was, but after Question Time, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt write and tell me precisely who he was. I will then reflect on the status of that advice and whence the officer was drawing his information and advice. I have given a detailed explanation of the fact that we continue to look for value for money, and it would be appropriate to examine the range of services provided across airfield services to see whether better use can be made of the taxpayers' money. That is the function of Government, but the hon. Gentleman is extremely unlikely ever to experience it.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State to make his statement, I want to make a brief statement myself.
	In the report that the House approved on 29 October, the Modernisation Committee recommended that the full text of a ministerial statement should be made available to Members in the Chamber as soon as the Minister sits down, or at the same time as the statement is given to the Press Gallery, whichever is the earlier.This is the first occasion on which that recommendation is to be implemented. I would ask Members to co-operate with the Doorkeepers in distributing copies of the Minister's statement around the Chamber. May I make it clear that I am treating this as an experiment? If it seems to me that the disturbance that results from the new arrangement outweighs the benefit, I will review the matter.

Education and Skills (Spending Plans)

Charles Clarke: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Government's education and skills plans for the coming three-year period.
	In July, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the outcome of the 2002 spending review. He stated that education spending will increase by an average of 6 per cent. a year in real terms over the three years beginning in April 2003. Following that announcement, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), published our agenda for change, which was called XInvestment for Reform". This set out how we would match those extra resources with sustained reform to achieve our objectives of a world-class education and training system that meets the needs of individuals and the economy. I now want to tell the House more about these investment and reform plans.
	With the exception of higher education, which will be the subject of an announcement next January, I am today announcing the details of our three-year settlement for the whole education and skills sector. I begin with the early years. The Government remain of the view that a strong early start is vital to continued educational success, so, as the Chancellor announced in July, we will be continuing our substantial investment in the early years, including our sure start programme, and funding a further expansion of 250,000 child care places.
	Working together with my colleagues in other Government Departments, particularly in the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions, we will continue to expand our sure start programme and to mainstream the approaches in those areas that we believe have been successful. As the Chancellor announced in July, expenditure on early years and child care will rise from about #1 billion this year to some #1.5 billion in 2005–06. Next year #300 million will be transferred to enable local authorities to provide universal nursery provision for three-year-olds.
	I turn now to schools, which will form the subject of most of my statement today. The reforms that I am announcing will provide a simpler, fairer system. Alongside this, we are seeking a continued drive to raise standards in every school in the country. Last week my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced the outcome of the review of local authority funding. As he announced, the national average increase in overall funding for schools and local education authorities is 6.5 per cent. Moreover, every local authority will next year receive an increase in funding per pupil of at least 3.2 per cent. The new system provides every local authority with a basic entitlement per pupil, plus more money for authorities with significant deprivation or recruitment and retention difficulties. Our three-year funding announcement means that we are giving local authorities certainty about their budgets in future years, so they can give schools indicative three-year budgets—and we expect them to do so. That will enable head teachers and governing bodies to plan and implement longer-term reforms.
	As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced last Thursday, the Government are committed to allowing local authorities more freedom over the use of resources. Ring-fenced grants will form a reducing proportion of local spending, so on top of the #4.3 billion increase by 2005–06 in local authority general education spending, which we have already announced, substantial funds will be moved from central DFES spending to local authority spending. That will be an extra #500 million in 2003–04 and a further #800 million in 2005–06. That means that, by 2005–06, more than 92 per cent. of all schools funding will be allocated through local authorities in accordance with local priorities. That compares with 87 per cent. in the current year of 2002–03.
	Thus we will end the ring-fenced grants from my Department for the following programmes in 2003–04: nursery education for three-year-olds, funding for infant class sizes, the school improvement grant, school inclusion-pupil support, performance management and induction for newly qualified teachers. In 2004–05, in addition to the above, we will do the same with grants for special educational needs, study support, golden hello payments, advanced skills teachers, school support staff, drugs education and teacher sabbaticals. We will also focus grants for the national literacy and numeracy strategies and the key stage 3 national strategy. The substantial increases in local authority funding that I have set out will enable authorities to take over the delivery of those important programmes in ways that meet local needs. Of course, we will closely monitor the effects of those changes.
	From 2005–06, we will also reform the system for rewarding those good, experienced teachers who pass the performance threshold. The money for teachers who pass the threshold will be devolved to the schools budget in that year. In the new year, we shall announce further measures to strengthen performance management in schools and cut associated bureaucracy. We shall also discuss with all stakeholders measures to ensure that the allocation of money meets the cost of the threshold payments made by schools.
	We will however continue with ring-fenced funding to provide national drive in some key areas. Three key grants will contribute to that aim. First, the leadership incentive grant will be #175 million a year for each of the next three years. We will provide #125,000 to each of 1,400 secondary schools in the inner cities and in challenging circumstances beyond. That money is being provided because it is clear that a good head teacher and leadership team are the key to raising expectations and achievement in schools. The grant is intended to support them.
	That money will be used in a variety of ways, including strengthening poorly performing departments, helping strong departments to help other schools and buying in specialist advice on leadership or working together with other schools to provide leadership training. In the weakest schools in particular, the money can be used to change the school's leadership. One purpose of the money is to encourage local schools to behave in a more collaborative fashion. It will be for local schools to decide how best to use it to strengthen their leadership teams, but I will reserve powers to ensure that the weakest schools make effective use of it.
	Secondly, the school standards grant, at #800 million in 2003–04 rising to #875 million by 2005–06, to be paid directly to schools, is intended to drive forward reform of the school work force. It will allow more and better trained teaching assistants to be employed to help the school team to work together more effectively. As we made clear in July, our substantial extra investment in the school standards grant must be matched by a commitment from unions and employers to a restructured teaching profession and a reformed school work force that is more flexible, diverse and focused on raising standards. We are making good progress towards agreement, but the extra resources will not be released until a satisfactory agreement is reached.
	Thirdly, the standards fund—about #1.5 billion in each of the next three years—will enable schools to galvanise reform on standards, behaviour and choice. In 2003–04, that will allow us to support, for example, the following programmes: the key stage 3 strategy at #120 million, ethic minority achievement at #80 million, music services at #60 million, excellence in cities and excellence clusters at #290 million, and school support staff and training at #170 million.
	As I announced a couple of weeks ago, we will provide sufficient funding for every school that fulfils the required standard to become a specialist school. The money will also provide support for primary literacy and numeracy. We are determined to build on the outstanding improvements that our primary schools have made since 1998. The national literacy and numeracy strategies have transformed standards but much remains to be done to achieve the ambitious targets that we set. We shall therefore continue to provide funding and support that is focused on schools which are under-performing by comparison with similar schools.
	Schools will have the freedom to spend their standards fund budget on any purpose, provided that they deliver the improvements in standards, behaviour and choice that we seek. We have already given the details to local authorities and we want significant improvements in outcomes.
	I am publishing today details of the capital funding that schools will receive to improve and modernise buildings. A typical secondary school will get #75,000 of devolved capital funding next year, increasing to #82,000 by 2005–06. That is part of a total investment in school buildings which, including private finance initiative credits, will increase from #3 billion in the current year to #3.8 billion in 2003–04, to #4.5 billion the following year, and to more than #5 billion by 2005–06. Although that represents a sevenfold increase in capital spending since 1996–97, too many school buildings have suffered decades of underinvestment. The extra amounts that I am announcing today include substantial extra resources to provide clean, modern and secure places for children to learn.
	I have announced a real-terms increase in overall funding for schools of more than 7 per cent. from 2002–03 to 2003–04. That will be followed by annual real-terms increases of more than 4 per cent. and subsequently 5 per cent. That is a total of more than 17 per cent. in real terms over the three years of the spending review. It means an average real-terms increase in revenue funding per pupil of more than #1,000, from approximately #2,840 to #3,850 in the 10 years between 1996–97 and 2005–06.
	I conclude with further education and skills. Its importance cannot be overstated. Developing our people's skills is critical to improving our productivity and hence to the country's economic and social future. We must transform the performance of the learning and skills sector and make it far more responsive to the needs of learners, employers and communities. We need to improve the quality of the sector and increase the achievement of those who study and learn in it.
	The document that I published last month, XSuccess for All", sets out our work on the further education reform strategy and our challenge to the further education sector. We shall work closely with the Department of Trade and Industry to co-ordinate our Departments' work more effectively. We are investing to match our ambition. I have already announced, at the Association of Colleges conference on 19 November, #1.2 billion for reforms to further education. That forms part of the Learning and Skills Council's budget, which I announced last week. It will rise by #1.4 billion, reaching a total of #9.2 billion by 2005–06. That means an increase in total spending on skills from #8.6 billion in 2003–04 to more than #10 billion in 2005–06—a real-terms increase of almost 12 per cent. over the spending review period.
	As the Chancellor made clear in his pre-Budget statement a fortnight ago, we face economic uncertainty and it is therefore more important than ever to continue to invest and reform to increase the skills of our people and improve our productivity as a nation. The substantial investment in education and skills funding that I announced today is a necessary but not sufficient condition for raising standards in our schools and colleges, thereby tackling the attainment gap and creating a world-class education and training system at all stages. That will be achieved only if, as well as investing, we reform our schools and colleges so that they genuinely fulfil every child's aspirations. That is the ultimate test of our success at the end of the spending review period. I am confident that, with the help of the millions of people throughout the country who are committed to our educational success, we will pass the test.

Damian Green: I am, as ever, grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. He knows that most of it was a series of re-announcements, including welcome news on early years and further education. I shall concentrate on the small amount of new material that he produced. It is clear that he wants to appear in a seasonally appropriate role as an early Father Christmas for schools. Sadly, the wrapping is more enticing than the contents of the package. Behind the rhetoric, the right hon. Gentleman is making artificially inflated claims for all areas of this country, and, in some areas, schools and pupils will rightly feel betrayed by the way in which he is fixing the distribution.
	It is perhaps appropriate that the Secretary of State is making this statement on the day on which the Department has been forced to admit that it is missing more than half the targets that it has set itself on school standards. Even when the Government are in control of the figures, they fail to meet them. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will understand, therefore, why today's announcement will be greeted with an appropriate degree of scepticism.
	I want to ask the Secretary of State about some of the issues that affect every part of the country. The first concerns the extra costs that his Government have imposed on schools, but which did not feature in his statement. Will he confirm that, next April, schools will have to find another #79 million simply to meet the employers' element of the national insurance increase that the Chancellor announced in his last Budget? Will the Secretary of State also give the House some idea of the scale of the extra money that will be needed to make up the value of pension funds for teachers and other local education authority staff—pension funds whose value the Chancellor has done so much to erode?
	Will the Secretary of State also confirm that there is an element of double counting in the increases that he is claiming? Specifically, has money been taken out of the standards fund—where it was already available for schools—transferred to the LEA budget line, and then claimed as an increase in the money available to schools through the LEA? Schools may well feel that this is an act not of generosity but of accountancy. While the Secretary of State is contemplating the standards fund, will he also confirm that, after the Government's most strenuous efforts at deregulation and cutting red tape, the number of funding streams within the standards fund has been cut from 71 all the way to 65? Today, he says:
	XSchools will have the freedom to spend their Standards Fund budget on any purpose—providing they deliver the improvements in standards, behaviour, choice we need . . . we are looking for significant improvements in outcomes."
	It takes some cheek for the Department to talk about improvement in outcomes on the day when it has admitted that it is missing most of its own targets. Will the Secretary of State explain what will happen to schools that miss their targets? Nothing happens to Ministers who miss theirs. Will he claw back the standards fund money from such schools?
	Why has the Secretary of State not responded more to the real desire both in schools and LEAs for more local control of spending? He made much of this in his statement, but, frankly, he protested too much. Does he agree that, in 1997, the central ring-fenced grants were just 4.5 per cent. of the schools budget? His predecessors increased that figure to 13 per cent., and he has done nothing like enough to bring it down. Centralised control is blighting our schools, and when he preaches about reform, he should start close to home, in his own Department. While he is doing so, perhaps he could answer a question that his colleague the Minister for Local Government and the Regions failed to answer on Thursday. Why has #250 million disappeared from the schools budget between the Chancellor's spending review and this statement?
	On reforming the system of performance-related pay, the Secretary of State said that, from 2005–06, the money for teachers who pass the threshold would be devolved to the schools budget. Will he give schools an assurance that that money will be available to them between now and 2005–06, particularly for the upper pay spine, which is causing severe problems in many schools?
	Every school in the country has reason to feel that the Secretary of State is trying to sell them a false prospectus, but some schools and pupils will find that they have been singled out for unfair treatment at the hands of the Government. Last Thursday, it became clear that the Government were declaring war on the shire counties, and those areas come out of today's statement particularly badly. There are a number of examples of this, but I will stick to one that is close to home for me: the treatment of Kent. On the Government's own figures, the increase per pupil is 3.2 per cent., but the effects of the teacher's pay settlement, the pensions problem, and the national insurance increase mean that schools will be facing a cost increase of 7 per cent. just to stand still. So pupils in Kent, including poor pupils, deprived pupils, and pupils from ethnic minorities, will lose out. So much for New Labour's ridiculous claim to be have become a one-nation party.
	What we see today is a classic new Labour con trick—shouting about what they are giving with one hand, while staying silent about what they are taking away with the other. It is a con trick the Government have tried many times, but they will find that the House and the British people have seen it all too often before. The Government will be judged by what happens in our schools, and after five years, it is a test that they continue to fail.

Charles Clarke: Talking of con tricks, the hon. Gentleman is trying to con the country with his suggestions about my announcement today of a real-terms increase in schools spending of more than 17 per cent.—7 per cent. next year, then 4 per cent., then 5 per cent. It is extraordinary that he should do so given that we all know that he is not prepared to commit himself to a single penny of those increases—indeed, interviews given by his party leader and others in this period imply further reductions in education spending rather than the increases that we have announced.
	As for the shire counties, I, too, represent a shire county seat—Norwich, in the shire county of Norfolk. The response of Norfolk's Conservative leaders to the settlement was to say that it was a good deal better than they had expected after the propaganda put out earlier by Conservative Front Benchers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman notes and appreciates, as I do as a representative of Norwich, the various aspects of our agreement that encourage local authorities to focus resources on real educational need in their area.
	The hon. Gentleman raised some specific points. Yes, the pensions amount is fully covered in the way that I indicated. As for the amounts from the standards fund, we are reducing the number of elements in that fund. I set out reductions in that area continuing during 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06. That is being done because we accept the argument from head teachers that we need a less complicated system of school funding and the removal of some of the separate streams. We are carrying that through, but I make no apology for the process that we have followed, which is to put in money to galvanise the system—for example, the primary literacy and numeracy strategy has made a significant material difference to education standards compared with the position that we inherited. That is also true of the question of greater local control—I stated the figures on that and will not repeat them; and on performance-related pay, I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he sought.
	In short, I think that this is a profound and solid statement, which shows the continuing commitment, not only of the Government over the next three-year spending review period, but of every school in the country. Schools will have a three-year programme that they can develop to raise standards. Never before have they had a three-year commitment in advance. That is a tremendous achievement and I am proud of it, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman can only sneer, rather than join in trying to raise standards in our schools.

Phil Willis: We will not begin our response to the statement in so churlish a fashion. We welcome any additional spending on our schools, and it is rather sad that the Conservative spokesman cannot simply welcome those additional resources.
	We welcome the capital resources, but how much—what percentage—of the grant announced today is PFI capital? We welcome, too, the 250,000 child care places, but will the Secretary of State confirm that they will be quality places and not summer play schemes, as was the case previously? We welcome the #1.2 billion increase in the FE budget, but will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that money will not meet the 14-to-16 element of the new 14-to-19 proposals, but will be entirely for use within the traditional FE sector?
	We welcome the three-year budget certainty, but that certainty rings rather hollow in the absence of advance knowledge of results from the School Teachers Review Body or the manual pay round. Will the Secretary of State make sure that the results of those pay rounds are announced before the traditional December settlement, not afterwards? We welcome the move away from ring-fenced grants to core budgets. We regard that as an admission that previous Secretaries of State have got it badly wrong by trying to dictate from the centre how everything is spent.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, when the fog has lifted from today's statement, we will see a #400 million deficit on the figures announced in the comprehensive spending review in July, rising to #530 million next year? How much will be cut from the CSR amount in 2005–06?
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that 9 per cent. of the 7 per cent. increase for schools will be met from council tax—[Hon. Members: XChurlish!"]—and that council tax payers will therefore finance a significant part of the settlement? Will he confirm that schools will have to meet the costs of the #600 million transfer of pensions liability from the Treasury? Will he confirm that local authorities will have to meet the entire cost of special educational needs statements for 2004–05—[Hon. Members: XChurlish!"]—and that the quantifiable resources agreed in the new code of practice simply mean the transfer of the budget to those authorities?
	Where does the statement mention resources to meet the 100 per cent. pledge on specialist schools, which we welcome and the Secretary of State has guaranteed? Will he agree to drop the #50,000 entry fee for the specialist programme?
	Finally, will the Secretary of State tell us why he has refused to accept the activity-led formula, which was agreed by all bodies from Ofsted to the teacher organisations, rather than returning to the historical base for the allocation of resources to primary and secondary schools?
	Notwithstanding those few deficiencies, we welcome the statement. [Laughter.]

Charles Clarke: It may seem uncharacteristic, but I welcome the welcome given by the hon. Gentleman. I do not think he was churlish; I think he asked fair questions, and in that general spirit I will do my best to answer them.
	I cannot give details of the PFI proportion, but the overwhelming majority of schools' capital will continue to come directly from the usual sources. I will write to the hon. Gentleman giving him the exact proportion for each year. The 250,000 child-care places are Xreal places", in the hon. Gentleman's words; they are not manufactured in any way. There will be a genuine increase in the number of places in pre-school education. The #1.2 billion is extra money allocated through the learning and skills councils, which, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, will fund both sixth forms and further education colleges over the period. I hope that co-ordination will be possible. So the extra money will be provided for post-16 education, as indicated. As I have said, 14-to-16 education will be funded through the schools budget for key stage 4.
	The hon. Gentleman is right: neither I nor anyone else can predict the outcomes of the review body's decisions. I can only say that, like other Ministers, we are trying to secure long-term agreements over two or three years, which we hope will help schools to plan effectively.
	I cannot confirm the existence of the alleged #400 million deficit. As for council tax—I make a political point here—elected local authorities must decide what tax rates to set, and must make balanced judgments on services and on the taxes that they levy. Everyone will want to know what the various authorities decide, but I hope that they will make a proper commitment to funding services. It is not true that, as the hon. Gentleman implied, all the increases will be financed by extra council tax. They will be financed by mainline spending.
	We are currently allocating #540 million to pensions directly. We are not asking others to provide the money.
	The hon. Gentleman made a serious point about special educational needs. We decided, as a matter of principle and in the spirit of giving more money to local authorities, to allocate the 2004–05 SEN resources by means of the local authority grant settlement. That is because we believe that our mainstream approach is right. As the hon. Gentleman said, however, some people will have worries. Some authorities will take their responsibilities more seriously than others. We will monitor local authority decisions very closely, and report to the House in due course.
	It is certainly our belief that dealing with special educational needs should be part of the mainstream function of any local education authority, and that it should take it up properly and carry it through. That is why we have made the funding change but issues could arise, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
	The funding for specialist schools is within the #1.5 billion for the standards fund that I have just announced but we have not put a figure on it because it is a demand-led programme, for the reasons that I indicated earlier. On the #50,000 entry fee, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, as I said in the House the other day, we are setting up a special fund to allow the #50,000 to be reduced in cases where a school demonstrates that it tried to build the relevant partnerships but simply did not have the cash. We will publish guidelines on that shortly.
	The activity-led formula is an old chestnut and I am sure that we will keep going over it in the next few years in an entertaining fashion.

Jim Knight: I very much welcome the great increases—the further increases—in education funding announced by the Secretary of State, but I am concerned about their distribution, particularly given the announcement last week. Sure start is welcomed in my constituency, where there is a detailed measure of rural deprivation—Dorset is 34th out of 34 shire counties—but that rigour is not applied in the new formula that was announced. I ask the Secretary of State to agree to meet a delegation from Dorset to discuss the effects of the settlement on our schools, which appear to be destined to continue to battle against an unfair funding formula.

Charles Clarke: I am delighted that my hon. Friend, who I think I am right in saying—he will correct me if am wrong—is the first ever Labour Member of Parliament for Dorset, is arguing much more powerfully for his county than some of his Conservative colleagues in other parts of the county. The spirit of the Tolpuddle martyrs lives on and I commend him for that. I will be delighted to meet a delegation to discuss those questions. In all seriousness, we put in a floor on funding per student precisely for the reasons that he raises, and indeed for the reasons that I would raise as a Member of Parliament for another shire county, Norfolk. Whatever the issues of equity, it is important that there should be basic guaranteed minimum funding, and that was guaranteed last Thursday. I am happy to meet a delegation to discuss those issues in more detail.

Nick Gibb: The Secretary of State's spending plans are of course welcome, but can he give an assurance that additional spending will be accompanied by major changes in the teaching methods and ethos of many of our state schools, which in aggregate are resulting in the United Kingdom education system coming 20th out of 40 in international league tables; a quarter of 11-year-olds not being able to read properly; a quarter of 15-year-olds saying that their lessons are blighted by noise and disorder; and half of 15-year-olds saying that they are bored by their lessons?

Charles Clarke: I would not entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says because, if we look at some of the international studies, British education does well, but I agree that change is necessary in a number of the areas that he has identified; that is precisely what I have been saying today. We need to move forward in order to generalise some of the changes that we have been developing—for example, advanced skills teachers. Therefore, we need change, but not in response to the pessimistic position that the hon. Gentleman is inaccurately describing.

Harry Barnes: Have not ring-fenced grants been used well by the Department for Education and Skills to iron out some of the injustices that inevitably arise from the Local Government Finance Act 1987? Perhaps we should hold on to them until we get the new legislation to see how fair it is, and so that that avenue can be used to improve matters in counties such as Derbyshire, where grants are still deficient.

Charles Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that those ring-fenced grants have been used well in a number of cases, for example, the primary literacy and numeracy strategy, and I could cite others. The impulse that the standards fund gave helped schools not only in his constituency but more widely to make profound changes. However, I also believe—it is policy right across Government—that we should try to devolve more decisions to local government.
	My hon. Friend will know from his own county council and from others that local authorities have not been able to engage with our programme as fully as they would like. That is why we have tried to make changes gradually over the period of the spending review. We have retained some central grants funds, for the reason that my hon. Friend rightly cited, and we have tried to ensure that others are mainstreamed by being passed to the local government settlements, so that the policies and achievements to which he rightly refers can be made part of general practice. I would be happy to discuss with him further any of the specific matters about which he is concerned, but I do not think that there is a contradiction in saying that we have done well in many respects, but that now we should try to generalise that good practice across the whole system.

John Randall: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the excellence in the cities scheme will be extended to the London borough of Hillingdon to help us sort out our crisis in teacher recruitment and retention?

Charles Clarke: I cannot confirm that, but I can confirm that Hillingdon, like other London boroughs, has the admirable and tremendous services of the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), and of Mr. Tim Brighouse, in trying to transform the entire approach of education throughout London through the London challenge approach. I acknowledge the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks—that improvements in education in Hillingdon are needed—but the performance in Hillingdon is not as poor as in some other areas of London, in which we have prioritised the issues taken forward. However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be happy to discuss with him precisely what measures he thinks would help to improve the situation in Hillingdon.

Ann Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in three primary schools in my constituency, 95 per cent. of the intake of children at reception level do not speak a word of English—in fact, some of them have never even heard English? I therefore welcome the expansion of the sure start programme, to which he refers. That will doubtless help a great deal; it is very popular—in fact, I think that it is wonderful. Combined with universal nursery provision for three-year-olds, that will certainly help to decrease the number of children entering school without any English. I should also mention that parents bear some responsibility in terms of using English in the home, so that we can avoid the trauma of little children going to school without a word of English.

Charles Clarke: I agree profoundly with my hon. Friend on the issue of sure start schemes, which have been tremendously successful. I have one in my constituency, and like that in my hon. Friend's, it has made a real difference. The challenge that we have to accept is not only to increase the number of sure start programmes, but to generalise the practice and experience of sure start, so that it spreads throughout pre-school education in her constituency and in mine. That is what we are trying to do.
	I also take my hon. Friend's point about the importance of relations with parents. That is at the core of the sure start approach, and needs to be at the core of all our pre-school education. On language, all that I can say is that I heard what she has to say, and she makes an important point. Children of that age are obviously growing up in a society in which English will be the dominant language, and they should focus on speaking English well. That is an important part of the job—a job that exists both in school and in the home.

Derek Conway: Can the Secretary of State explain to the House whether he has reviewed the #50,000 barrier for specialist school status? It is an entrance hurdle that is proving a problem in many London boroughs, including my own of Bexley. On further education, which he touched on in his statement, can he assure us about the future of adult education colleges, many of which feel the squeeze? The issue concerns not just those who want to increase their skills for their working life, but the contribution to the community of those who have retired. Such people are increasingly feeling the squeeze because of the funding process for further education colleges such as Bexley college.

Charles Clarke: For the third time, I am happy to confirm that we have looked again at the #50,000 figure, and in conjunction with the technology colleges trust we have set up a #3 million fund to help schools that want to be specialist schools. We have built the various partnership arrangements with a cash grant to reduce the #50,000 that they might have to pay, if they can demonstrate that they simply cannot raise the money by that means. We have heard the comments of many Members from both sides of the House, and of many schools, and have tried to respond constructively.
	On adult education, the increase in resources for the Learning and Skills Council is extremely large. We believe that adult education is tremendously important, particularly issues of adult literacy and numeracy. Some 7 million people in this country still do not have basic level 2 skills. That is a blight on our system. A large amount of money is going into further and adult education because of the fundamental truth that we need to work much harder to ensure that people at all ages and levels, and of all skills, have the talents to meet the needs of the modern economy. That is where the resources will be targeted. That still leaves a place for adult education colleges of type described, which do tremendous work—I have taught in one myself—but the overall mission must be to raise the level of education and skills across the country, and in all areas.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Dennis Skinner: I was having a very serious discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), Mr. Speaker.
	I am not in the mood to be churlish because I went to see a consultant about 10 days ago and I got good news. [Hon. Members: XHear, hear."] However, the important thing is that Derbyshire authorities, including the authority in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), had a tremendous result of 12.5 per cent. in the local government settlement last Thursday. We hit the ceiling at 12.5 per cent. and Derbyshire county council got 8 per cent. There is no doubt that irrespective of any comments, the activity in education in the past three to four years has been tremendous, and we want to keep it going, especially in the coalfield areas that need rejuvenation. Keep up the good work—send the money to Bolsover.

Charles Clarke: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks, and I am sure that the whole House will be pleased at his good news. He is right in what he said. We will keep the money coming, particularly to Bolsover.

Patrick McLoughlin: Is it true that there will still be 65 separate avenues through which schools can claim money, even after the changes that the Secretary of State has made? Is he aware of the anxiety caused to many head teachers about the number of forms that they have to fill in? What is he doing to rationalise those forms and the system of grants?

Charles Clarke: There are a couple of points to address. First, the vast bulk of money—about 99 per cent. of it—goes through six of those funding streams. It is true, as I announced in my statement, that we took six funding streams out this year, thus reducing the number from 71 to 65. I announced that we would take out another seven next year and further funding streams the year after. So we are steadily reducing the number of funding streams to reduce the complexity about which the hon. Gentleman and others have complained. He should not forget, however, that the overwhelming majority of resources are met through just six funding streams, and that is as it should be.

Chris Pond: My right hon. Friend will be aware that before last Thursday's announcement, every head teacher in Kent was briefed by Kent county council that they should be looking at 8 per cent. cuts in budget. Clearly, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was at one of those briefings. However, we now know that, overall, Kent will see a 6.6 per cent. increase in its education funding, which I welcome. In the context of increased devolution of education budgets, can my right hon. Friend reassure us that he will ensure that local education authorities get the funding through to the schools that need it? Will he also congratulate Kent county council on giving the news this weekend that Lawn primary school has made such improvements that the council is to keep it open?

Charles Clarke: I am happy to congratulate Kent on its decision on Lawn primary school. I addressed Kent head teachers with the Conservative leader of Kent county council a couple of weeks ago and we discussed many of these points in a friendly and fraternal way. I am glad that some of the scaremongering that people engaged in before the local government settlement was announced last Thursday has been proved to be demonstrably false. The fact is that we have provided an increase for every school in Britain. Conservative Members should praise us for that rather than carping at us.

Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State will recall that after five years of our pressing for it, the reform of the area cost adjustment has delivered a welcome substantial increase in the formula spending share for Cambridgeshire. However, the increase in the education formula spending share cannot be matched by grant because of the operation of the ceiling—only 70 per cent. of the notional increase is actually matched by grant. The Secretary of State referred to three-year indicative budgets. How is my local education authority to go about that process with the ceiling in place? Can it be lifted, for example, so that matters could be discharged in two years rather than three, or could we have indicative figures for the ceiling on grant changes in the two subsequent years?

Charles Clarke: The reason that we have floors and ceilings—so-called—is that we want to ensure that none of the people who would lose most in any rejigging of the system lose as much as they might. However, that means that some of the people who might have gained most do not gain as much as they might. If we were to remove the ceilings for Cambridgeshire, we might have to remove the floors from some other counties, for example—

Damian Green: What about Kent?

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman brings Kent into the equation and that is indeed an example. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) would like to discuss between themselves whether they want to remove the ceiling for Cambridgeshire and the floor for Kent, or keep the floors and ceilings in place. I shall be interested to hear their conclusion.

Peter Pike: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that his officials discuss with Lancashire county council at an early date the reorganisation of secondary schools in Burnley to recognise the fact that, for several years, we have had an admissions problem and that, this year, some parents set up a do-it-yourself school? Difficult decisions have to be taken. The resources are there, so will my right hon. Friend ensure that his officials discuss the matter with Lancashire?

Charles Clarke: I am happy to guarantee that my officials will look at the situation in Burnley and if my hon. Friend would like to bring a delegation to meet the Minister for School Standards or myself to discuss the matter, we should be delighted to do so. It is important to acknowledge the fact that the existing resources—especially on the capital front—allow the resolution of some difficult long-standing issues such as those described by my hon. Friend. I hope that we can help to do that.

David Curry: How all this impacts on local authorities depends on the relationship between the old system, with its large amount of grant, and the new formula. The purpose of a formula is to be redistributive, otherwise it would not exist. In Middlesbrough, for example, they appear to have gained on both the roundabout and the swings, yet a little further south in North Yorkshire there are serious concerns over medium-term funding, especially in relation to the diminishing standards fund and in particular the nursery grants for three-year-olds, which diminish after 18 months. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that essential funding is maintained over that medium term, even in the less visible guise of the formula?
	While we are on the subject of direct grants, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer renounce his annual habit of dishing out money to head teachers in the course of his Budget as a special headline-grabbing formula? After all, that is a direct grant.

Charles Clarke: If the Chancellor decides to give a little bit of money to head teachers throughout the country in his Budget next year, I certainly shall not try to prevent it. In fact, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has given me an idea that I may pursue.
	On the right hon. Gentleman's more serious point about nursery grants, I shall look into the comparisons that he gave. The mysteries of the local government grant funding system and the formulae that operate are designed to update the data based on the current situation in each part of the country. That is how the figures emerged. It might be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman dropped me a note about the detail of the particular points he raised. I should be happy to consider them.

Fiona Mactaggart: May I start by congratulating the Secretary of State on the great news about universal nursery education for three-year-olds? I did not expect to see that so quickly. It will make more difference to success in education than many of the other things that he has announced.
	May I press my right hon. Friend on the leadership incentive grant? Will he ensure that he uses those resources extremely carefully in areas such as mine where there are separate grammar and secondary-modern schools. Langleywood school has got out of special measures by good leadership and is currently working with Langley grammar school, with some teachers holding appointments at both schools. If we can use initiatives such as that to create partnership, I am sure that children in Slough who do not pass the 11-plus will get a better deal from their secondary education.

Charles Clarke: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The example that she has given from Slough illustrates precisely the type of collaboration that we are trying to encourage. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards is carefully considering how we can use the grant in a way that ensures that schools both receive the money and work collaboratively to deal with particular leadership problems. The kind of scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) mentioned is helpful in that regard.
	We want to avoid the money merely being put into budgets where there is no real leadership outcome. We are convinced that when schools work together—especially at post-16, but also in the 14-16 age range—we can make a major difference in their performance. We hope to use the money to encourage that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have notice of a point of order from Dr. Harris.

Points of Order

Evan Harris: Thank you for calling this point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have previously commented on the importance of Ministers making policy announcements to the House to enable Opposition Members and Back Benchers to carry out our role of scrutiny. You will be aware that last Friday a policy announcement was made about civil partnerships and the recognition of same-sex couples in The Independent and on the XToday" programme by the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women, to whom I have given notice of this point of order. There was no sign of any Government announcement on that matter the day before, given that Friday was not a sitting day and, indeed, the answer to a parliamentary question tabled on 27 November gave no indication that an announcement was due. There have been allegations that that announcement was made to dominate the news agenda—[Interruption]—to conceal or displace other items in the news that day, but there was a great deal of interest in this important matter. I should be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, if you could let me know whether you had any indication that the Government planned to make an announcement, whether any statement at the Dispatch Box or written statement is due, or whether the relevant Minister is willing to come to the House to apologise for the fact that, yet again, announcements have been made outside the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I reiterate what I have said many times before: the House should be the first to know of changes in Government policy. As for the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, my understanding is that last Friday's announcement concerned an intention to consult on the proposals that he has described. It did not therefore constitute a policy announcement as such.

Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noted that, when Madam Deputy Speaker was in the Chair on Thursday at the conclusion of the statement on local government finance, I raised a concern, which many Opposition Members share, about the attitude of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions when responding to the concerns that were expressed. About an hour after the Minister finished answering questions, I received a message from the director of finance of my local authority to say that the Minister's announcement that my borough council would receive a 3.2 per cent. increase in local government spending was, in fact, based on fiddling the figures by adjusting the current year's spending and that the true figure was only 1.08 per cent. Can you give us guidance on how we may press in the House for Members to receive a proper, accurate statistical analysis, supported by the opinion of professional local government officers, rather than by fiddled figures announced by Ministers?

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman raises is a matter for debate. He knows that he can apply for an Adjournment debate or table parliamentary questions. There are many ways to extract the figures that he requires.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, during business questions last Thursday, I asked the Leader of the House why we were not yet aware of the motion that the Government will table on Thursday for what he described as a substantive debate. He said:
	XIt is right that we should have a full day's debate on those topics"—
	agriculture, the environment and foot and mouth disease—
	Xand a full motion will be tabled in good time."—[Official Report, 5 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 1050.]
	So it was perfectly obvious that the Leader of the House seemed to know last Thursday what would be the terms of the motion that the House will debate this Thursday, yet, as I speak, there is no indication of what that will be. Can you do something about that, Mr. Speaker? If the Leader of the House knows the terms of the motion, presumably, Ministers also know them. Why cannot they share that with the House so that we can have a properly prepared, structured debate on Thursday?

Mr. Speaker: May I advise the right hon. Gentleman that this is perhaps something that he could take up through the usual channels?

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Extradition Bill

[Relevant document: The First Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, on the Extradition Bill (House of Commons Paper No. 138).
	Order for Second Reading read.

John Denham: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I am pleased to introduce this important Bill. The House will understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is indisposed, but I am sure that he will be back with us shortly.
	This important Bill will bring what are essentially 19th-century extradition arrangements into the very different world of the 21st century. The main legislation that it will replace is the Extradition Act 1989, which, of course, was a consolidation measure that included large chunks of the Extradition Act 1870. The 1870 legislation effectively still governs our bilateral extradition arrangements.
	Our extradition arrangements are in urgent need of reform. On average, it takes 18 months to extradite someone from the UK and, in many cases, much longer. The system allows the fugitive to raise the same—arguably, often spurious—points time and again, and to mount numerous legal challenges. Even when—as has happened many times—an individual appeals all the way to the House of Lords following the committal hearing, he can, once the Secretary of State has considered the case, appeal all the way again on exactly the same grounds.
	To give a real-life—but anonymous—example, Mr. B was wanted by the French authorities for trafficking in cannabis. It was alleged that he assisted his father in overseeing the importation of approximately £1.3 million worth of cannabis resin into the UK. He was arrested in the UK in November 1995. He appealed against his extradition, through habeas corpus and judicial review, no fewer than five times, raising many of the same issues each time, and then attempted to delay his extradition on health grounds just before his actual surrender. He was finally extradited to France in September 2001, nearly six years after his arrest, and was sentenced in November 2001 to four years imprisonment and a Euro45,000 fine. The costs of detention alone in this case exceeded #120,000, to say nothing of court and legal costs.
	The present extradition system has manifest failings. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), speaking in the debate on the Loyal Address less than three weeks ago, said:
	XIt is clear that the extradition procedure needs to be tightened, streamlined and speeded-up . . . we need to limit the number of appeals and to tighten up the whole procedure . . . Currently, I think one can make about six appeals in the average extradition case."—[Official Report, 20 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 682.]
	Although he went on to make several detailed criticisms of the Bill, the House as a whole will share the sentiments that he expressed in those remarks.
	We live in a day and age in which crime is becoming increasingly international, and we simply cannot go on as we are. We need a quick and efficient extradition system in which proper protection for the rights of those who are the subject of extradition requests is built in. Before describing the provisions of the Bill, perhaps I can explain to the House a little of its history.
	In March 2000, the then Home Secretary, who is now the Foreign Secretary, announced that a review of extradition law would take place. It was completed a year later, and a consultation paper was published in March 2001. We are very grateful for the responses that were received, which can be found in the Library and on the Home Office website. We published a draft Bill in June this year and again received many helpful comments. I particularly welcome the interest that the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have shown, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), who chair those Committees. We have also heeded what those Committees said, and a number of additional safeguards in relation to politically motivated requests and fugitives' state of health have been built in to the Bill as a consequence.

David Cameron: As the Minister is aware, many important extraditions have not gone ahead because of the courts' interpretation of article 3 of the European convention on human rights. Is he aware of the Soering judgment, in which someone accused of murder could not be extradited to the United States under article 3? What will the Bill do to try to streamline such cases and make the extraditions go ahead?

John Denham: It is important to say that the Bill does not seek to overturn the European convention on human rights. Indeed, the convention provides a test for extradition that is built into the Bill, so it would be wrong to suggest that we are attempting to use the Bill as a way round some of the issues arising from the convention. In drafting the Bill, we have sought to make it clear that the extradition proposals do not suspend or change the convention's provisions. Such a human rights principle should be reflected in the Bill.

Chris Mullin: Although I was grateful to hear my right hon. Friend's kind words of a moment ago, the recommendations in the Home Affairs Committee's report go considerably further than the ones that he has so far adopted. I was a little disappointed, therefore, by the off-hand press release issued on Thursday in response to our report. It seemed to suggest that we should not take too detailed an interest in this subject. I am sure that that was not the intention, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that he proposes to look carefully at the rest of our recommendations and that we might, in future, look forward to seeing some of them implemented too?

John Denham: Naturally, I am very disappointed that my hon. Friend is disappointed at the tone of the press release. I hope that nothing that we said gave the impression that it was not the business of the Home Affairs Committee to look closely at this Bill. In my earlier remarks, I was referring, in particular, to the changes that we were able to make between the draft Bill and the Bill's current version in response to representations and suggestions made by, among others, the Home Affairs Committee. In the past few days, we have received the more recent comments of the Committee on the Bill before us. I am sure that those comments will be discussed in this debate and examined carefully in Committee. We will, of course, consider every suggestion and recommendation on its merits and, if we are convinced of them, we will seek in the appropriate way to amend the legislation. I have not in any way closed the door on the principle of considering some of the recommendations from the Home Affairs Committee.

David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman has received suggestions from a wide circle of people who have taken an interest in the Bill. How many consultees' suggestions were incorporated in changes to the draft Bill before it reached this stage?

John Denham: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the arithmetical answer that he seeks; indeed, some suggestions came from more than one organisation. In particular, the provisions for politically motivated requests and for the health of suspects were made in response to proposals from several different organisations. Further changes were made to the drafting in respect of the release of prisoners if an extradition were withdrawn purely because the consultations revealed that ambiguous drafting had led to the wording being interpreted in entirely the opposite way to that which the Government intended. There were a series of recommendations of that sort. The consultation responses that we have permission to publish are in the House of Commons Library, and I am sure that they will be of use to hon. Members when the Bill is in Committee.
	I shall describe in more detail the provisions in the Bill. Parts 1 and 2 create two parallel regimes for handling incoming extradition requests. Part 1 is the more streamlined regime. It will apply initially to requests from other European Union member states and enable us to give effect to the European arrest warrant—the EAW. The Government believe strongly in the principle of mutual recognition. It has been suggested in some quarters that the EAW is the first step towards the creation of a European judicial superstate—quite the reverse. It is precisely, if we want to avoid pressure for a Europe with harmonised laws and a single judicial system that we must be prepared to recognise the judicial decisions taken in other European countries.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has just told the House that the Bill is designed to extend, in the first instance, the power to other European countries. We are, of course, dealing with the power of designation, so to what other countries do the Government, at this time, intend to designate by Order in Council?

John Denham: We do not at this stage have particular countries to which that could be extended.
	Major issues of concern surround the European arrest warrant. It will help if I address them now because, on closer examination, they will turn out to be unjustified. The framework decision on the European arrest warrant was given parliamentary scrutiny. The Government maintained a scrutiny reserve until both Houses had cleared the instrument, which happened after the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), had appeared before Committees in both Houses and there had been a debate in another place. By introducing the Bill, we are giving Parliament another opportunity to consider the measures.
	There have been fears about foreign police officers coming to Britain to arrest people. They are groundless. Only British law enforcement personnel, such as the police and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, will be permitted to execute a European arrest warrant in this country.

Richard Shepherd: But the offences are not listed in the Bill and the means of changing or expanding them is by ministerial order. Do the Government not think that that is a highly unsatisfactory process?

John Denham: That is a slightly different issue. I was talking about powers of arrest. The Bill reflects the framework decision on the list of generic offences and makes specific reference to that in, I think, clause 63. The list of generic offences is clear. At the moment, an amendment to the list could be made only by unanimous agreement in the Council of Ministers. It is our judgment that it is better to have drafted the Bill as we have, referring to that decision, rather than to be required automatically to have new primary legislation should such a change be made. I am sure that that will be explored in Committee. The Bill is drafted in such a way as to avoid the need to introduce primary legislation. I am not aware of any proposals in the justice and home affairs division of the EU to change the list of generic offences.

Oliver Letwin: The Minister said that only a British constable would execute the warrant. Does that mean that he accepts that we need to amend clause 3, which allows the Secretary of State to designate absolutely anyone as an appropriate officer?

John Denham: I said that it was the Government's intention that only British law enforcement personnel would be permitted to execute a European arrest warrant in this country. That means the police, but it could also include Customs and Excise. There are plenty of legal precedents for using the term Xappropriate person", including in legislation adopted by the Conservatives when they were in government to deal with powers of stop, search and entry that gave an even wider range of discretion to the Home Secretary. Given the point of principle that I have outlined, I have no doubt that the precise wording can be considered in Committee.

Oliver Letwin: It would be helpful if I could take it that the Minister is willing to redefine the clause so that it clearly applies to British law enforcement officers.

John Denham: I am saying that there is plenty of precedent in almost identical circumstances in which Governments, including Conservative Governments, have restricted a power to British law enforcement personnel even though they have used the term Xappropriate person", or something similar, in legislation. That should give the House sufficient confidence in this Government's intention to use the Bill in the same way. I have no doubt that the matter will be considered in Committee. However, it is important for the House to understand clearly the Government's intentions.

Tony Cunningham: A few months ago, I spoke to a police officer who worked on serious crimes, by which I mean drugs, people smuggling and so on. He said that not one of the top 100 criminals—those people who are involved in the most serious crimes—lived in the UK. Is not that a good reason why we need the Bill?

John Denham: Crime is becoming increasingly organised internationally. It is important that the system of extradition does not prevent the effective but just use of extradition to ensure that serious criminals can be dealt with. It is the recognition throughout the European Union that the systems that we have in place make law enforcement and the exercise of justice more difficult that lies behind the agreed moves throughout the EU to change extradition arrangements. I think that my hon. Friend is right.

Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend referred to the European Union. Will he confirm that if the EU is enlarged during the next few years, the proposed legislation will mean that we can take much more effective action to deal with the criminality that exists throughout the European continent? It will then be far more effective in tracking down the origins of the people smugglers and the drug smugglers who use central and eastern Europe as a conduit to this country.

John Denham: My hon. Friend makes a good point, to which I shall turn shortly.
	An important part of the accession agreement is that states must be able to fulfil their full obligations under the framework decision and the European arrest warrant. The ability to have common approaches throughout the EU after enlargement will, I think, be of significant assistance to us in fighting international and organised crime.
	I shall continue to go through the issues that have been raised as potential objections to the Bill. It has been said, for example, that people will be sent off to stand trial in another country without due process in this country. I can reassure the House. Anyone who is the subject of a European arrest warrant will be entitled to an extradition hearing before a British judge. They will then have the right of appeal to the High Court and, if significant points of law are raised, to the House of Lords.

John Burnett: Will the issuing country—the country that requires the extradition—have to make a prima facie case in this country?

John Denham: No. In the context of part 1, the issuing country does not have to do that today, and has not had to for many years. Under the European agreement on extradition, a much wider group of countries than the EU—essentially, the Council of Europe countries—agreed more than 10 years ago that prima facie evidence did not need to be provided. It is an unfortunate myth that the Bill is introducing a profoundly new principle into our extradition arrangements with our European colleagues.
	There is an issue about prima facie evidence that comes up in part 2, which I shall address briefly. However, as for EU countries, I think that there is no new issue of principle in the proposed legislation.

Boris Johnson: Mutual recognition.

John Denham: The provision of prima facie evidence is not required at present and it will not be required in future. On this issue, the Bill does not introduce a new principle.
	It has been suggested that a newspaper editor could be extradited for publishing an anti-German editorial. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that these stories are wildly inaccurate. No one will be extradited for conduct in this country that is not illegal in this country. I shall say more about dual criminality in a moment.

Derek Conway: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Maples: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Denham: No. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me. Perhaps I could make some progress and then take more interventions.
	There have been complaints that we are removing the requirement for evidence in the case against fugitives to be produced. As I have said, all the Council of Europe countries have not had to provide prima facie evidence with their extradition requests since the United Kingdom signed up to the European convention on extradition in 1991. I assume that the Opposition found that an acceptable principle then—I assume that they still do today. It has been suggested that we would be obliged to extradite in cases where the presumption of innocence is not applied. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) in the debate on the Gracious Speech, the presumption is a guaranteed right under the European convention on human rights, to which all European Union states have signed up. In the case of convictions in absentia, the Bill it makes it clear that we will extradite only if the fugitive is guaranteed a retrial. A retrial is differentiated from a simple appeal by the fact that the process starts again from scratch with a presumption of innocence.
	Having spent rather longer than I intended on what the European arrest warrant is not about, I shall say what it is about, and describe its benefits. It will speed up extradition with EU partners. In future, cases within the EU should take about three months, as opposed to nine to 12 months at present. The current timetable for bringing serious criminals to justice does a great disservice to the victims of crime. It works both ways—Britain's extradition procedures are notoriously slow, but our EU partners are not always above blame, as demonstrated by the case of Mr. L. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in this country for beating a man unconscious and leaving him to die. The victim died from his wounds four days later. Mr. L escaped from prison and absconded to France, and an extradition request was made to France, where he was duly arrested. One would have thought that that was a very clear case, yet it took more than a year before he was returned to Britain—one can only imagine the additional distress and pain that the episode must have caused the victim's family.
	Some of our European partners refuse to extradite their own nationals, even if they have committed the most heinous crimes in Britain. The European arrest warrant will mean that those countries will no longer be able to prohibit extradition of their own nationals, denying us the right to try those who have committed serious crimes here.
	Some of our European partners have traditionally been unwilling to extradite people who have committed purely fiscal offences. The UK has never held the view that fiscal offences are minor crimes, but others take the contrary view. UK criminals have not been slow to exploit that loophole, with the result that people accused of major tax evasion and VAT fraud have been able to escape justice. The European arrest warrant means that serious criminals accused of fiscal offences will no longer be able to hide within the EU.
	Some of our European partners are unwilling to extradite for crimes where they have a statute of limitations, even though we do not. The case of Mr. Y, a British national, illustrates the problem. He was accused of the serious sexual abuse of two children in Britain—a crime that by its nature only comes to light many years after the event. His extradition from Denmark was sought, but refused because Denmark's statute of limitations had expired. However, Mr. Y could legitimately have been put on trial in this country. In future, people in his position will be extradited.
	The European arrest warrant will have all those clear benefits for the United Kingdom and our criminal justice system, but there will also be strong safeguards for fugitives—an extradition hearing before a district judge, the right of appeal to the High Court and, if important points of law are raised, to the House of Lords. Extradition can be barred because of double jeopardy, and will not be possible if the fugitive's mental or physical condition makes it unjust to extradite him; if there is reason to believe the prosecution is politically motivated; if the fugitive's trial is likely to be prejudiced by extraneous factors; or if the fugitive's rights under the European convention on human rights would be breached. All the states that we are talking about are mature democracies and ECHR signatories, so it is highly unlikely that some of those bars will ever arise.

Douglas Hogg: I have almost lost my voice, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can hear me. On the ECHR point, will it involve the district judge assessing the quality of the trial that the defendant will receive in the country to which he is to be extradited?

John Denham: The Bill is based on mutual recognition of each EU country's judicial and criminal justice systems. The presumption on which the original framework decision and the legislation are based is that decisions in one another's countries are respected and trusted. None the less, we need to be sure that ECHR rights are not breached. Personally, I think that unlikely in the case of the states under discussion, but it would be open to people to argue, as it always is in legal processes, that that would be an issue. It is important that the House understands that mutual recognition is a point of principle on which the Bill is based.

Derek Conway: The Minister brings to the House his usual temperate delivery, for which we are grateful. However, there is a concern. If 32 categories of offence are exempted from the dual criminality requirement, what does the Minister say about Lord Scott's observation that the definition of a xenophobia offence in the schedule
	Xwould almost certainly cover the distribution of Biggles and probably the Old Testament"?
	On the murders, rapes and child offences, nobody in the Chamber would do other than share the Minister's views, but it is the other aspects of European law, which are not customary in the United Kingdom, that cause concern.

John Denham: Perhaps it would be helpful if I turned straight to the issue of dual criminality, which is clearly an important issue in this debate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Denham: I should attempt to answer the intervention from the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) before I take others.
	First, no one will be extradited for conduct that takes place lawfully in this country. Secondly, it will be possible for people to be extradited for conduct that is not illegal in UK law, but where that conduct has taken place in the requesting state and breaches its law. The principle is simple: British people who go abroad should be expected to obey the law of the country that they are visiting, in the same way as we expect visitors to this country to obey our laws.
	If a German citizen came to this country and acted illegally in the UK, we would expect them to be arrested and put on trial, irrespective of whether their conduct was contrary to German law. In the same way, a Briton who visits Germany should not expect to escape justice for breaking German law simply because Britain does not have an exactly equivalent crime. If a British citizen goes to Sweden and breaks the law there, he can expect to be arrested and put on trial, irrespective of whether the conduct is contrary to UK law. I am sure that no right hon. or hon. Member objects to that proposition—

Desmond Swayne: I do.

John Denham: It will be useful to flush that out in the debate. I believe that a British citizen who goes to Sweden and breaks the law there should expect to be dealt with by the Swedish criminal justice system. Opposition Members seem to believe that if that person flees before arrest and manages to cross a border, they should be safe from prosecution. In a world where travel is so simple and widely available, that is an indefensible position.

Desmond Swayne: Is the Minister suggesting that, had the tourists in Greece earlier in the year left Greece and got back to the UK, and had an extradition warrant subsequently been issued for their arrest, it would have been quite proper for us to ship them back for conduct—observing aeroplanes—that is a crime there, but not here?

John Denham: If a country has a crime of espionage and wishes to charge people with that, that must be its right.

Desmond Swayne: Is that a yes?

John Denham: Just as we in this country would expect our espionage laws to be followed. There is a fundamental point of principle here, which Opposition Members need to recognise. It is difficult to argue that British citizens should be able to travel to other EU countries and break their laws, without arguing that the same rights should be extended to visitors from the EU who come to this country. That is not what our fellow citizens in this country expect. We expect that anybody in the UK who breaks our laws can be brought before British justice and that the extradition system should enable those people, if necessary, to be brought back to face British justice.

Michael Jabez Foster: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Are not specific offences such as sex with children under 16 and some forms of drug trafficking or drug abuse legal in certain European countries but illegal here? Are those who oppose the measure suggesting that we should let people who commit such offences off simply because they flee the country before prosecution?

John Denham: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It would be useful to find out in this debate whether Opposition Members believe that people who break the law in this country should be able to escape justice simply by leaving these shores for another European Union country. That is at the heart of the issue.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Denham: I should like to make a little progress—

Richard Shepherd: Will the Minister give way on that very point?

John Denham: After I have made some progress, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	Not all EU countries have an offence of incitement to racial hatred and most other EU countries do not have an offence of fraudulent trading—but we do. Not all EU countries have laws equivalent to ours on the evasion of excise duties. As long as Opposition Members maintain that there must be absolute dual criminality in the EU, it follows that they are suggesting that people can commit the serious offences that I mentioned with complete impunity as long as they can cross the frontier before our police apprehend them.

Richard Shepherd: Does the Minister not appreciate that the matter is more complex? Essential to our concept of liberty is freedom of expression and free speech. We regard that as an especially important ingredient, but other countries take a view on some elements of free speech. For instance, xenophobia may be a thought crime here, but it is not a legal crime, even though it can be an offence elsewhere. The Bill is now trespassing on areas that affect the freedom of the citizen in this country, as well as that of the German or French person who expresses in words something that is contrary to their law and then seeks residence here. We would have to extradite such a person for something that we hold to be important—the right to freedom of expression.

John Denham: The problem with the hon. Gentleman's argument and the logic of his position is the suggestion that somebody should be able to travel to this country from Portugal—I have nothing against the Portuguese people or any reason to believe that they might wish to do this—which does not have laws on incitement to racial hatred, and incite racial hatred here, perhaps with a serious impact on community cohesion. If they were to escape arrest, they could then return to Portugal without our being able to take action. It is our view that that is unacceptable.
	Indeed, the principle that underlies the framework decision in the EU is that member states collectively and unanimously believe that the creation of loopholes that enable criminals to avoid the consequences of their conduct throughout the EU is wholly undesirable both for individual member states and for the development of the EU itself.

Annabelle Ewing: Will the Minister give way?

John Denham: It is useful to have this discussion to flush out some of the issues, but I should like to make some progress. I shall, however, give way to the hon. Lady.

Annabelle Ewing: The Minister said that, in the round, the Bill, and therefore the European arrest warrant, reflected the principle of mutual recognition, which is a key legislative principle in the EU. However, does he accept that, as we have seen in swathes of legislation implementing the EC single market, the principle of mutual recognition is based on the premise of a minimum harmonisation of standards? That has not happened in criminal law as it was outwith the scope of the EC treaty. It is only with regard to third pillar measures that any moves have been made in criminal law. Is it wise to proceed with such measures when we lack proper understanding about whether we have a common and acceptable framework with regard to procedural safeguards in criminal law, for example, and also whether the presumption of innocence is applicable in the terms in which we understand it, certainly in Scots law, throughout the European Union?

John Denham: That is clearly a matter on which hon. Members need to reach a judgment as the Bill progresses. The Government believe that the answer to both the hon. Lady's questions is yes. We have sufficient confidence in the criminal justice systems of the mainly mature democracies of the 15 countries of the European Union. I shall deal with the point about the accession states shortly. The European convention on human rights is incorporated into the law of each of those countries. The protection of the presumption of innocence is therefore built into the approach that we are considering.

Oliver Letwin: The Minister has been extremely patient, but I want to take him up on his last point, which he made earlier in passing. Does he accept that there is a difference between the right to a fair trial, which the convention guarantees, and the presumption of innocence, which is a peculiarity of specific judicial systems, including ours?

John Denham: I believe that the protection that we seek for the presumption of innocence is in the charter, but doubtless we shall debate the matter at greater length.

Harry Cohen: rose—

David Cameron: rose—

John Denham: I need to make progress, but I hope to take further interventions before I finish.
	Subject to the Bill's successful passage, we shall be in a position to begin operating the European arrest warrant by the deadline in the framework decision of 1 January 2004. However, it will be possible to use it earlier on a reciprocal basis with countries that enact their enabling legislation before the deadline.
	I want to consider part 2, which deals with extradition to the rest of the world. Its provisions are similar to the current system, with a continuing role for the Home Secretary, but it also incorporates some of the advantages of part 1. Instead of the multiple and overlapping hearings and appeals that currently occur, there will be a single extradition hearing, which will be followed by the Home Secretary's consideration of the case. After that, there will be a single appeal hearing, under which all the decisions can be reviewed. The case can subsequently go to the House of Lords if significant points of law have arisen. We have also incorporated significant safeguards from part 1.
	No one will be extradited if their mental or physical condition would make that unjust or oppressive. No one will be extradited if a request has been made for the purpose of persecuting the fugitive on the grounds of race, religion or political opinions, or if those factors mean that he is liable to be prejudiced at his trial. No one will be extradited if double jeopardy comes into play, or if the person is below the age of criminal responsibility in this country.

Edward Garnier: I believe that clause 78 in part 2 deals with double jeopardy. The Government are about to change the law on it in this country. Will the Extradition Bill match the Criminal Justice Bill, or will the Government produce two conflicting measures on double jeopardy?

John Denham: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point, which I was about to tackle. He is right that we will need to match the relevant provisions of both Bills so that they make coherent sense. Although the Extradition Bill simply provides that no one will be extradited if double jeopardy comes into play, as the measure progresses through Parliament, we will try to provide for the possibility of extraditing somebody from a country that took the approach that we hope to effect in the Criminal Justice Bill.
	In other words, if another country had a judicial process that was akin to the ability that we propose for the Court of Appeal to set aside an existing judgment and thus enable a case to be retried, extradition could be allowed from this country. Our ability to extradite someone who, in a classic case, had been identified through DNA evidence, from another country would depend on its domestic law. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point, because this is not what the legislation says, as it stands, and nor is it quite what the Criminal Justice Bill says. It will be important that both pieces of legislation are worked together as we go through them. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for ensuring that we did not go past this point in the debate without my having the opportunity to say that.

Edward Garnier: I am always grateful for flattery, from whichever quarter it comes, but the House is entitled to know which is the lead Bill. Is it the Extradition Bill or the Criminal Justice Bill? Both cannot be discussed at once on the Floor of the House, and both may yet get Royal Assent on the same day. It is important for the public, as well as for practitioners and for potential victims—if I can use that expression—of either Bill, to understand precisely how the Government are going to order their priorities. That is wholly unclear at the moment.

John Denham: We will need to keep discussions open on the way in which this is to be dealt with, through the usual channels. To some degree, that will depend on the rate of progress of Bills through this place. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point, and I do not dismiss it out of hand. I hope that he will accept my assurance that we recognise the validity and importance of the issue that he has raised, and the need to be as clear as we can with those outside—as well as with right hon. and hon. Members and Members of another place—about how we intend to mesh the two Bills carefully together.
	I want to say a little more about part 2. I should make the point that a district judge will be explicitly required to consider whether extradition would be compatible with a fugitive's rights under the European convention on human rights. I am sure that there will be further discussion on this, but article 6.2 of the convention states that:
	XEveryone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
	That relates to a point that was raised a few moments ago.
	In addition, most countries in part 2 will, as now, continue to have to provide prima facie evidence to accompany their extradition requests. However, as I have already explained, under current arrangements the non-EU members of the Council of Europe do not have to provide prima facie evidence, and that will remain the case. The Government believe that there is a case, as we said in the March 2001 consultation paper, for removing the prima facie requirement from certain key Commonwealth and bilateral partners. We have not sought prima facie evidence from European countries for more than a decade, so why should countries such as Australia and Canada continue to be subject to that requirement? For countries of that kind, questions of guilt or innocence should be matters for the court of trial in the requesting country. The Bill therefore allows for orders to be made removing the prima facie requirement from certain part 2 countries. The Bill also enables a strict timetable for part 2 cases to be put in place. Notwithstanding the significant safeguards for fugitives that will exist, we believe that it should generally take no more than six months for one of these cases to be completed, which will represent a significant speeding up of the process.
	Part 3 deals with outgoing extradition requests. Our existing legislation is largely silent on this issue, and we have relied mainly on the use of the royal prerogative. The Bill sets out who will be able to apply for European arrest warrants in this country, how, and for what offences. Part 4 sets out the powers available to the police in extradition cases. It had always been assumed that the powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 applied in extradition cases, but a legal ruling in a particular case cast doubt on that. We are therefore taking the opportunity to bring a measure of certainty to the matter. Let me stress that the powers that the Bill creates are closely modelled on those in PACE. Finally, Part 5 covers miscellaneous and general matters. The Bill runs to some 208 clauses. Its length reflects the consultation earlier this year, as well as the decisions to include provisions on outgoing requests and police powers, and to make the law as accessible and clear as possible.
	The case for reform of our extradition laws is clear. There is no other area of law in which people can raise the same, often spurious, points, time and again, simply as a means of delaying proceedings. The Bill will modernise our extradition procedures, while retaining the important and necessary safeguards for those who are the subject of an extradition request.
	Organised and international crime is, as my hon. Friends have said, a sad feature of life in the 21st century. We need an extradition system that enables us to meet that challenge. The Bill will provide that and I commend—

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so close to the conclusion of his remarks. Will he confirm that those Irish citizens who have committed acts of terrorism, which is a conduct listed in the relevant provisions, and who have gone on the run to the Republic of Ireland, will now be extradited?

John Denham: The hon. Lady intervened during the last sentence of what I admit was a rather low-key peroration, but a peroration none the less. There is certainly nothing in the Bill to put any obstacles in the way of extradition. As I said earlier when detailing the history of the Bill, it long predates the many new terrorism measures introduced after 11 September. However, the hon. Lady is quite right to say that terrorist offences are covered by it.
	I commend the Bill to the House.

Oliver Letwin: I begin by sending—on behalf of the whole House, I am sure—our best wishes to the Home Secretary for his speedy recovery.
	The bulk—by volume, as opposed to importance—of the Bill is not highly contentious. Parts 2, 3 and 5 will no doubt repay attention in Committee but do not involve vast matters of principle. Part 4 contains some worrying elements—for example, clause 160(3)(b), which, if I understand it correctly, allows the police to search premises if they have Xreason to believe" that a warrant will in due course be issued in some other country. That does not fill me with enthusiasm. We will have to look closely at part 4 and the powers contained therein, but by and large I do not think that it contains matters that need detain us long—they did not detain the Minister during his opening remarks.
	Part 1 is a wholly different matter. There are four problems with this part, which deals with the European arrest warrant. The first problem is that the part does not say what the Minister says it means. The second problem is that what the Minister says part 1 means is not acceptable. The third problem is that we do not need part 1 in any event, because part 2 would do the trick perfectly well. The fourth problem is that the only reason for having part 1 is a reason that we do not accept. Other than that, there are no objections to part 1. [Laughter.]
	Let me explore the first of those four objections—that the part does not say what the Minister says it means—and give some examples. In clause 2(3)(a), the definition of the scope of the warrant is given. We are told that the arrest warrant must contain a statement that
	Xthe person in respect of whom the warrant is issued is accused in the category 1 territory of the commission of an offence specified in the warrant".
	The Minister told us that that is meant to mean that the offence itself must be committed in the territory in which the warrant has been issued. I believe that that is what the Minister means it to mean, but the English language has a stubborn habit of carrying its own meanings, and the words printed do not mean what the Minister says. The words printed mean that the person in respect of whom the warrant is issued has to have been accused in that territory of the commission of an offence; the offence may actually, within the meaning of subsection (3)(a), have been committed in this country or some other country.
	Let me give a second example. The Minister told us that there was no intention whatever of allowing anyone other than an English law enforcement officer, however defined—I accept that it might be an officer of Customs and Excise rather than the police—to execute the warrant. Clause 3(3), however, defines an Xappropriate person" who may be allowed by the Secretary of State to make an arrest by means of the warrant dealt with in subsection (2) as
	Xa person of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section."
	In other words, the Bill does not mean what the Minister wants it to mean. It means that the Minister can decide that absolutely anybody is an appropriate person, including a policeman from a different jurisdiction.

Ian Lucas: The right hon. Gentleman has stressed the importance of using terms exactly. When he referred to English officers, did he mean British officers?

Oliver Letwin: For the purposes of English law and in England, they would be English officers. Presumably for the purposes of Scottish law and in Scotland they would be Scottish officers. My unionism is still strong enough for me not to worry too much about that distinction, although I am immensely concerned about the prospect of an officer from another EU country coming to the United Kingdom because he has been designated by the Secretary of State. I take the Minister's statement at face value, and if he says that the intention is to specify only law enforcement officers in our jurisdiction, that is what the Bill should say.

Douglas Hogg: I am sure that that is the answer we shall be given in the Minister's winding-up speech, but somewhere down the track there may well be an agreement between EU interior Ministers that each will enable the other to authorise, by some designation procedure, the officers of the other to execute the law in the United Kingdom.

Oliver Letwin: I agree. I must not have made myself clear. I do not mean that it would be acceptable for the Minister to keep saying, on the record, that he intends the clause to be used only in regard to English officers; I mean that part 1 would only be remotely satisfactory if it specifically precluded the least possibility of anyone other than an English law enforcement officer carrying out such procedures in England. That is why I say that the Bill must mean what the Minister says he wants it to mean, and not something else. I do not want to live in an Alice in Wonderland world of legislation.

Annabelle Ewing: May I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas)? I speak as a Scots lawyer and the representative of a constituency controlled by the Scottish National party.
	The right hon. Gentleman will know that Scotland has a separate criminal legal system—fortunately—with separate rules and regulations governing our police force. It would help if he was specific when referring to the territorial make-up and the various component parts of the United Kingdom in that context.

Oliver Letwin: In the presence of the hon. Lady, I would be terrified to make the slightest statement except in relation to English law and its enforcement in England. I am sure she will tell us what she thinks about Scotland, and we can discuss it further in Committee. I would rest content if it were the case, which it is not, that part 1 was satisfactory from an English point of view.

Tony Cunningham: Does the right hon. Gentleman have a problem with the drafting, or does he oppose part 1 in principle?

Oliver Letwin: Both.
	My second objection is this. We now come to the first of the issues of principle. Part 1 would not be acceptable even if it meant what the Minister says he means it to mean. The Xlist of offences", for instance, is not a list of offences, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) pointed out with his usual perspicacity. It is, in fact, a mechanism whereby a set of representatives of executive powers—of Governments—in the European Union will decide what, from time to time, they wish to be the list of offences. The Minister told the House that it was far better to ensure that it was done by the unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers rather than by some other mechanism, but what does he mean by the unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers? He means that the Governments of the member states would get together and change the framework directive, and thereby change the list of offences.
	Again, the Bill may not mean what it is meant to mean. Perhaps it is meant to mean just the current list; if so, let us include the current list, to which I shall shortly object in any event, and not a mechanism that seems to the ordinary reader to permit the list to be enlarged further. In fact, I believe it to be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to allow the list to be enlarged. I think that Parliament will be consciously sidelined as we proceed, with a larger and larger list of offences specified.
	The list is already deeply obnoxious. It contains the arguable offence of xenophobia, which is an offence in some countries but not in ours, in a most bizarre and ambiguous form. Clause 13 specifically provides one of the few bars to extradition under part 1. For example, extradition would be barred if a person found that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of
	Xhis race, religion, nationality or political opinions".
	I do not know what an English judge would do when faced with one clause that tells him that he cannot extradite someone if the extradition relates to the person's political opinions, when another clause tells him by the roundabout route of the framework directive that the person can be extradited if the charge is xenophobia. I do not know how an English judge could be expected to adjudicate on that appropriately. It is not clear from part 1 whether the English judge will or will not—there are two contrary suggestions within the drafting—be able to look at whether the charge of xenophobia is ipso facto a charge that relates to the political opinions of the person in question.
	I do not suppose the Minister has the slightest idea what the answer to that question is. The framework decision has been adopted lock, stock and barrel, and a group of people has got together to put back, through the bars in clause 11, a few constraints designed to ameliorate a set of draconian measures.

Mike Gapes: May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's comments that he would be perfectly happy if neo-Nazi groups in one European Union state were able to use computers, the internet and publishing material to undermine laws on incitement to racial hatred or xenophobia such as exist in this country and in Germany without any possibility of action being taken against them?

Oliver Letwin: I am not sure that I have ever heard quite such a confused intervention. The difference between the offence of xenophobia, which we do not have, and the offence of incitement to racial hatred, which we do have, is the very difference that we are discussing. Of course, if the test of dual criminality continued to apply as it should—it does not under the Bill—one could continue to extradite those who were engaged in incitement to racial hatred, which is a criminal offence in this country, but not those who were accused of xenophobia, which is not an offence in this country.

John Denham: The right hon. Gentleman has given his views on xenophobia. What is his view about a British citizen who commits a tax evasion offence in this country but is able to escape with impunity to another European Union country? Is he happy that there should be no extradition powers because no dual criminality exists?

Oliver Letwin: Given that we are talking about an extradition procedure that, in total, currently covers about 50 people a year, some 25 or 30 of whom come from the European Union, the idea that one would prejudice the fundamental liberties built into the fabric of our laws for the sake of the possible extradition to this country of perhaps one person every two or three years is not proportional. I should say now—I will deal with the matter in more detail in a moment—that we accept that, in the sole case of terrorism, the dangers to this country are so great that something similar to what is in part 1 might be thinkable. However, that is an altogether different level of threat.

John Burnett: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister is perhaps not being as—

Douglas Hogg: Candid?

John Burnett: No, not candid. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister is not being as resourceful as he could be? Tax evasion is also fraud, and presumably fraud is actionable in both states.

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Gentleman has the great advantage of knowing something about English law, and of being a canny lawyer. I have no doubt that the British state could—and indeed does—arm itself with canny lawyers who could make such an argument. That illustrates very well why we ought not to seek to avoid the need for ingenuity, and why we ought not to adopt instead draconian measures that have real effects on civil liberties in this country, when the gains are so slight.
	I turn briefly to the issue of the fair trial, which is of immense importance and also reflects on the Criminal Justice Bill. There has been a misunderstanding between Opposition Members and those on the Treasury Bench about the meaning of a fair trial, and of the term Xpresumption of innocence"; the Minister's remarks brought that out interestingly and powerfully. He pointed out that one of the bars to extradition under part 1 is any failure to comply with human rights, and in that he was absolutely right. There is no doubt that clause 21 unambiguously applies the European convention on human rights, and even if it did not I do not suppose that it would make the slightest difference under the Human Rights Act 1998. In any event, it is unambiguously present in the Bill.
	Paragraph 2 of article 6 of the convention, which is properly headed XRight to a fair trial", states:
	XEveryone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
	That is the paragraph on which the Minister was hanging his hat. In many of the jurisdictions to which part 1 applies—in all of them, I believe—the ECHR is either incorporated into, or de facto a part of, law through the monistic theory. One way or another, the meaning of article 6 is therefore already being applied in those countries, many of which have inquisitorial systems of justice. In such a system, the examining magistrate begins with the assumption, let us say, that the person whom he or she is investigating deserves to be investigated, and seeks to find out whether there was a reason why the person should not have been investigated. I would call that an assumption of guilt, to be disproved by the investigation. Call it what one may, the process is utterly different from the dialectical process in an English court of law, whereby the accused is presumed by the jury to be innocent, and the duty of the prosecution is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the presumption of innocence was false. Those are different systems of justice.

Gareth Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Letwin: In a moment. Arguments can be made for either system, but they are different. We know that paragraph 2 of article 6 is applied in countries with inquisitorial systems, and that they are held by Strasbourg to be in conformity with that clause, so the Minister cannot claim that, in the sense in which we in this country mean it, the presumption of innocence and the need to prove beyond reasonable doubt is maintained through the ECHR: it is not, as a plain matter of fact.

John Denham: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could help the House on two points. First, does he recognise that the Bill explicitly says that extradition can be only for the purpose of trial, not for investigation? Secondly, given that, under previous Conservative Governments and under this Government, we extradited many people to countries whose inquisitorial systems he does not like, does he believe that all those extraditions were in breach of human rights?

Oliver Letwin: No, because those cases—as would be the case if part 2 applied, as it should—are open to challenge. The whole point of part 1 is to undercut the opportunity for challenge. That is the sole purported advantage of the European arrest warrant in part 1. It is a very grave difference.

Gareth Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the adversarial system is not only different but somehow inherently superior? Many people would question that assumption.

Oliver Letwin: I suppose that I shall be accused of being old-fashioned and perhaps even xenophobic, but as a matter of fact I do think that it is superior. Whether it is superior or not, it is clear that part 1 will make it very much easier for people to be removed to places where the adversarial system does not apply and the presumption of innocence in that sense is not applied.
	I said at the beginning of my speech that apart from not meaning what the Minister wants it to mean and containing things that are intrinsically offensive, the third problem with part 1 is that we do not need it because part 2 works perfectly well. I want to use the example of the United States of America, but let me point out that no observation in retort to what I say based on the death penalty operating in the United States will be of the slightest interest, because in both parts the Human Rights Act applies. Rightly or wrongly, therefore, no one would be extradited to the United States under part 1 or part 2 to face the death penalty.
	Apart from the death penalty, I do not see the slightest reason to suppose that judicial operations in the United States are less meritorious than those in the European Union. As a matter of fact, its system of justice is more, rather than less, aligned to ours than those of most of our continental partners. Its record in administering justice is, like that of all civilised countries, imperfect, but it has a recognisable system of justice that, by and large, delivers justice. There is no doubt that it is a major extradition partner. On page 8 of its very useful analysis, the Home Affairs Committee reveals that the United States of America accounted for 23 of the 139 extraditions that occurred in the three years between 1999 and 2001. It is therefore the second largest partner in extradition. Germany is the only country to which a larger number of people were extradited in those years.
	Part 2 of the Bill, not part 1, will apply to the United States. I cannot for the life of me understand why we are taking measures of this kind to assist extradition to other EU countries if we do not regard it as necessary to do that in relation to the United States and if we regard part 2 as a sufficient and, to the Government's credit, considerable improvement in the current arrangements for extradition. Why do the Government not have as much confidence in part 2 as I do?
	I said that there was a fourth point and there is—it is the answer to my semi-rhetorical question. There is a reason why the Government do not have confidence in part 2 and why they are using part 1, notwithstanding the severe reservations of the Home Affairs Committee. The reason is that part 1 is being used as an aspect of the development of a new relationship between the EU and its member states in relation to justice and home affairs. I may part company with some of my right hon. and hon. Friends here, but I think that a rational argument could be made in favour of that transformation. I do not happen to share that view; I do not believe that it would be an advance for mankind, but I admit that there could be such a rational argument.
	There can be no excuse, however, for the effort to enact part 1 without admitting the reason for doing so. An open acknowledgement that, in respect of our EU counterparts, part 1 is to be preferred to part 2, because at the time and in the context of 11 September the Home Secretary and his fellow Justice Ministers were led by those with a different agenda to adopt a system specifically designed to enlarge the area of EU competence at the expense of the member states, would be an argument worth entertaining. However, the idea that Members of the House should settle down and accept part 1, with its gross deficiencies of drafting allied to its gross deficiencies of principle and its lack of proportionality, in the presence of a perfectly suitable alternative in part 2, merely because the Government want—but do not want to admit that they want—to abet an evolution of the EU with which, I suspect, most of the people of this country are not in accord, beggars belief.

Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce my right hon. Friend's point? Is it not extraordinary that the part 1 procedure would apply to Greece yet the part 2 procedure would apply to Australia? Surely most people in this country would think that if the Government had such absolute confidence as to use the part 1 procedure, they would use it in respect of the courts of Australia and not in respect of the courts of Greece.

Oliver Letwin: Yes, I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. Incidentally, the House should be aware that he and I have not always been on the same side in every argument about the evolution of the EU.
	The measure offers a set of steps that are unacknowledged but dangerous. They are unacknowledged because the Government do not want to enter the debate that would be caused if they acknowledged what they were up to. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in this place and my noble Friends and others in another place will prevent part 1, as drafted, from coming into effect.

Edward Garnier: A moment ago, I pointed out to the Minister that he faced a problem with the match between this Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill. The Criminal Justice Bill attacks the jury system in a most pro-European way and the Government persist in attacking the lay magistracy. Continental Europe has neither the jury system nor a lay magistracy. There is thus a double marriage between the two measures. My right hon. Friend is rightly and carefully pointing that out.

Oliver Letwin: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Furthermore, the Government have presented the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill as a tiny amendment that would for the first time allow foreign policemen—whom the Minister tells us he means not to authorise, but who will be authorised under the Extradition Bill—to enter the country to pursue a villain across our borders.
	In short, we find ourselves surrounded by a set of minor incursions that are centripetal in their intent. There is a move towards the homogenisation of systems of justice in the EU—[Interruption.] The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety suggests that I do not believe what I am saying. I do not think that I have ever in my life said anything that I believe more strongly. If he is sufficiently naive as not to believe it—if he is a fellow traveller rather than a willing enthusiast—he will be sorely disillusioned as the measure progresses.
	I shall not detain the House further. We cannot and will not put up with part 1 and we hope to see it erased—except in relation to the extreme case of terrorism.

Chris Mullin: I shall speak mainly to the Select Committee's report, to which several Members have already referred.
	I thank Ministers for publishing the draft version of the Bill long enough in advance for interested parties to comment on it and for my Committee to examine it. As the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, my right hon. Friend has pointed out, one or two changes have been made as a result of representations received. I am pleased to note that and I hope that there will be more in due course.
	At the outset may I say that I entirely accept that there is a need to overhaul our procedures, given some of the lengthy fiascos that have surrounded extradition cases in the past? However, in the Select Committee's view the Bill goes too far in dispensing with the protections that are rightly available to protect our citizens from injustice at the hands of foreign legal systems. To some extent, of course, it is a fait accompli because Ministers have already signed up to the framework document, committing the Government to introducing far-reaching reforms, but the Government appear to be going further and faster than the framework document requires, and we do not believe that that is justified.
	As we have heard, the Bill will create two categories of country. For category 1 countries, there will be fast-track procedure, dispensing with just about all the existing safeguards, including dual criminality and the discretion of the Home Secretary. Instead, a judge has merely to satisfy himself that the warrant is in order and that the alleged offence comes within the 32 categories listed in article 2.2 of the framework document. For category 2 countries, the procedure will be more rigorous, but still a great deal simpler and with fewer safeguards than at present.
	Category 1 will initially consist of all existing EU members which have signed up to the framework document. Category 2 is likely consist of all non-EU members of the Council of Europe, including countries such as Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Georgia and Russia, whose legal systems, as they would be the first to admit, leave a certain amount to be desired. Indeed, I was visited the other day by a man in President Putin's office who told me that the Russian judicial system results in a conviction rate of 99.6 per cent. One possibility—in fairness to him, he did not seek to argue this—is that he presides over a nearly perfect system, but we need to contemplate another possibility. In addition, we are told that some Commonwealth countries will be included, as well as other countries with which we have bilateral treaties.
	Clauses 1 and 68 will allow the Government to designate by Order in Council which countries fall into which category. Clause 205 provides that such orders will be subject only to a negative resolution, so parliamentary scrutiny will be minimal. That brings me to the Select Committee's first concern. In effect, Ministers could add any country to category 1 or 2 without having to explain their reasons to Parliament. Although they say that they have no plans to do so, it does not need a great deal of foresight to foresee the day when they will wish to add the United States to the list of category 1 countries, to which people can be extradited with the minimum of formality. I wish to say plainly that that would not be acceptable.
	I part company with the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on the judicial system in the United States. In my view and, I think, that of the Select Committee, there is a world of difference between the judicial systems of western Europe and those in the United States, where there is a huge variation in the quality of justice available, depending on whether people are in the east, west, north or south. I do not agree that the death penalty is irrelevant to this debate. To take but one example, I can think of nowhere else in the developed world where politicians compete for office on the basis of the number of death warrants they have signed.
	In the unanimous view of the Select Committee, clause 1 should be amended to specify that only countries that are signatories to the European framework document should be included in category 1. In any event, the Select Committee was of the view that no country that maintains the death penalty should be allowed into category 1. Clause 68 should be amended to specify that only countries with which the United Kingdom has bilateral treaty arrangements may be included in category 2. At the very least, clause 205 should be amended to provide that Orders in Council designating new members of either category must be approved by an affirmative resolution of each House.
	Turning to category 1, almost all existing safeguards will be dispensed with for countries in that category. Instead, as I said, it will merely be necessary for a judge to satisfy himself that the alleged offence is among the 32 listed in article 2.2 of the framework document, and that it carries a maximum sentence of 12 months or more.

David Heath: The House owes a great deal of gratitude to the hon. Gentleman's Committee for its work on this matter. Is he satisfied that the 32 categories are sufficiently accurately described and defined outside or in the Bill? It seems to me that some are extremely vague: for instance, the category of sabotage, which could mean a lot or very little, depending on which country was involved.

Chris Mullin: That is precisely the point to which I was coming, although I recognise some of the problems to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks.
	It is true, as we have seen, that not all the 32 offences are recognised under British law. Apart from xenophobia, which has been mentioned, those offences include computer-related crime, environmental crime, swindling and sabotage. Under the Bill, it will therefore be obligatory for suspects to be extradited for alleged offences that British law does not recognise, and British courts will have no power to intervene. The judge who examines the warrant will be a mere cipher, which is not satisfactory.
	One solution might have been to amend the list of offences for which extradition is automatic, but that is impossible as Ministers have already signed up to the EU framework document, which is now immutable. The next best solution, which is the one that my Committee commends to the House, is for the Bill to be amended to allow a district judge to examine the warrant and state whether, in his opinion, dual criminality applies. In cases in which an alleged offence is not an offence in the UK, the Home Secretary should be given the discretion as to whether to extradite. That would circumvent the problem of the offences that are not recognised in this country but are on the list of 32.

Simon Hughes: Did the hon. Gentleman's Committee reflect on the very unsatisfactory procedure in this area, whereby Members of Parliament can be asked for their views on such proposals, but their views count for nothing? Ministers can take decisions at a European level that are binding on the United Kingdom, without the assent of the UK Parliament, or of either House, having been secured beforehand.

Chris Mullin: Indeed, we were not entirely happy with that. There has been a degree of parliamentary assent to this matter, but not the degree that most of us would like.

Gareth Thomas: On the point about giving the Home Secretary discretion when the district judge has signified that there is a dual criminality issue, did my hon. Friend's Committee seek specialist or legal advice as to whether that was possible, and whether it would be consistent with the EU framework to which the Government have subscribed?

Chris Mullin: We did have specialist advice, but of course there are specialists and specialists. No doubt the Home Secretary had a few specialists at his disposal, and perhaps he will tell us if there is a reason why that discretion cannot be given. I am not aware, however, of any such reason. As I said, that would surmount one problem.
	With regard to the seriousness of the offences to which fast-track extradition may apply, the EU framework document applies only to those offences for which a maximum sentence of three years is available. Ministers have gone much further than the EU requires. They have lowered the threshold to 12 months, which will greatly increase the number of offences for which extradition applies, not all of which, as we have seen, are recognised in this country.

John Denham: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, at the moment under extradition law the threshold in this country is 12 months, so the debate is about whether it should be raised from 12 months to three years to fit in with the framework decision or whether it should be left at its current level?

Chris Mullin: At the moment there are certain safeguards which it is now proposed we do away with. It is still a live issue, and we recommended that the three-year limit specified in the framework document should be retained, although that is a matter for debate. We may be able to improve the safeguards and thereby resolve that issue.
	I wish to make one general point in passing. I realise that it is argued that no law-abiding citizen has anything to fear from the judicial systems of our EU partners and that the quality of justice elsewhere in the EU is at least as good as that available here. Generally speaking, I am sure that that is true, although I would point out that a suspect in, say, Italy could find himself on remand for several years before he has his day in court. What is more, I notice that under our existing system the courts have often refused extradition to EU countries, and so, occasionally, has the Home Secretary. What has suddenly changed that has enabled us to throw all caution and existing safeguards to the winds as regards extradition to category 1 countries?
	There are other problems with category 1 extraditions. As it stands, the Bill allows the list of 32 offences to be incorporated into UK domestic law without any opportunity for Parliament to disagree with, let alone debate, the proposed changes. The Select Committee believes that that is unacceptable. Furthermore, despite Ministerial assurances to the contrary, it appears that clause 2(5) will deny our judges the opportunity to refuse an application on the ground that it does not come from a properly constituted judicial authority of a category 1 state.
	The Bill is also silent as to what information should appear on a warrant. In addition, the Government have signalled their intention to abandon the so-called speciality rule, which has not yet been referred to in the debate and which makes clear the principle that a suspect can be tried only for the charge for which he is being extradited unless the extraditing authority consents to its being varied or added to. In the Select Committee's view, all those points need to be addressed, and we have made recommendations for doing so.
	With regard to category 2 states, non-European countries are currently required to show that there is a prima facie case to answer before the UK will agree to extradition. Clause 83(6) will enable the Government to exempt any category 2 country from that requirement. We think that the recommendation is too broad and that it should be limited either to non-EU member states that are signatories to the convention on extradition or to any other state with which we have a bilateral agreement that imposes obligations similar to those set out in the convention.
	On extradition to countries that have the death penalty, we recommend that, in line with existing practice, the Secretary of State, rather than a district judge, should be required to assess the adequacy of a written assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or carried out. We urge Ministers to explain how such written assurances will be assessed.
	Finally, we recommend that the powers of arrest contained in the Bill be tightened. It should specify the appropriate persons entitled to make arrests, although I heard what the Minister said about the precedents on that point. If we mean—in addition to the police—Customs and Excise officers, let us say so. Arresting officers should be required to show the warrant to an arrested person, and judges should also be required to inform an arrested person of the contents of the warrant and to ensure that a person has access to proper legal advice before they can consent to extradition.As I said in an intervention, I was a little disappointed with the tone of the press release that was issued in response to our report by the Home Office, under the name of the Under-Secretary my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth). In it, he said:
	XDoing nothing is not an option".
	Well, we agree about that. No one—certainly not the Home Affairs Committee—has suggested that we do nothing. He added:
	XIt's time to stop talking . . . and take action".
	We agree about that, too. Nothing in our report should stand in the way of streamlining our outdated procedures. It is, however, our view that the Bill would benefit from further revision.

John Burnett: Liberal Democrat Members wish the Home Secretary a speedy recovery. I should also declare that I am a lawyer, but I do not practise.
	I record my gratitude to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and to the Home Affairs Committee, which he chairs, for its report on the Bill, which makes compelling reading and is extremely useful. It is a tribute to his Committee that it managed to compile it in such a relatively short time.
	Most hon. Members acknowledge that certain crimes, particularly terrorism and serious international crimes, have to be dealt with as speedily as possible. Furthermore, we all understand that, as the Minister said, extradition works both ways. Not only are we called upon to extradite individuals, but there are occasions when we seek extradition to our jurisdiction.
	The changes that the Bill proposes will make extradition, particularly between category 1 territories, swifter and less bureaucratic. My problem with the Bill is that it does so by jettisoning some established protections for individuals and watering down many other safeguards. I shall come to that point.
	The Home Affairs Committee set out a raft of detailed objections to the Bill, and I wish to dwell on some of the principled objections. I apologise to the House if I repeat some of the points that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South made. There will be scope in Committee to endeavour to improve what is an ill-thought-out measure.
	Currently, the law provides some crucial protections. First and foremost, there is a requirement for dual criminality, and that point has already been explained several times in the debate. The offence for which extradition is requested should not be of a political character. Existing law tells us that extradition is not allowed if its purpose is to secure the prosecution of a fugitive on account of his or her race, faith, nationality or political opinions or if he or she might be denied a fair trial for those reasons. The fugitive will not be extradited if he or she has been previously acquitted or convicted of the same offence for which his or her extradition is sought. That is the current state of play. Most important, we will not extradite for an offence that carries the death penalty in the requesting state, although undertakings that the death sentence will not be carried out can be given.
	Furthermore, after a fair appeal process, there is the rule of speciality that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South mentioned. It provides that the fugitive cannot be charged with any conduct for which he was not extradited. This is, for obvious reasons, an extremely important rule that prevents extraditions for trivial or other offences that are subsequently dropped and for which a prosecution in the extraditing country of a more questionable offence is substituted.

Bob Ainsworth: We will want to discuss in Committee how the rule of speciality applies. There is clearly the issue—it is not hidden—of the dropping of dual criminality for those offences on the list. The hon. Gentleman claims that other safeguards will be removed, but surely he recognises that the proposals in the Bill do not change anything to do with extradition to countries with the death penalty or with the bar relating to politically motivated prosecutions.

John Burnett: I am grateful for that intervention. I am not suggesting what the Bill will do but merely giving an exposition of what I believe the current law to be. I was interested by what the Minister has just said and by what the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety said earlier about his mind not being closed to amendments. I was glad to hear that.
	Other principles are worthy of mention, and they include legal representation, abuse of triviality, consular access, availability of interpreters, habeas corpus and no undue delay. Some of them are unfortunately absent even in countries that are signatories to the European convention on human rights. As the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) pointed out, we should expect minimum standards. We do not want to put the cart before the horse. It is a shame that the Government have signed up to the framework decision before securing those minimum standards in the European Union itself. The first is that a suspect or defendant must be able to understand and contribute to the legal process. If he or she cannot, there can be no effective participation. Such impediments, whether linguistic, physical or mental, must be overcome. That means having adequate interpreters, legal representation and consular access.
	Unfortunately, some member states do not have legal aid—I understand that Greece is one—and cannot provide proper legal support. We need effective participation in the legal process, and it will be denied if the apparatus, such as access to interpreters, is not in place. Furthermore, rights that we believe are fundamental, such as the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the right to bail if appropriate and the right against self-incrimination, should be expected from all jurisdictions to which a person is extradited. Not only have the Government precipitately signed the framework decision, but the Bill takes the provisions further, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South stated.
	Our main objection to the framework decision is the fact that the principle of dual criminality is surrendered if the offence falls within one of the 32 offences listed in article 2.2 of the framework decision, or if the offence carries a maximum penalty of at least three years' imprisonment in the issuing state. To say that some of those offences are nebulous is an understatement. Some of them are certainly not capable of definition and many are capable of distortion, as the Home Affairs Committee points out. Swindling and xenophobia are difficult to define under the current law in EU member states, including this country. There is no way of knowing how those offences may be defined in future. Offences such as participation in criminal organisations, corruption and fraud are extremely broad, as the Select Committee states in paragraph 26 of its report.

Nick Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the distinction that he is trying to draw implicitly challenges the principle of XWhen in Rome, do as the Romans do"? The offences for which one might be extradited would, with rare exceptions, be those that are committed on the soil of the country where the law applied. Unless the hon. Gentleman wishes to change that, he must accept that it is possible to be arrested on the spot. We are debating only whether a person could be arrested if he flees the country before the authorities catch up with him.

John Burnett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but we had a short debate on that earlier. As I said when I intervened on the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), it is clear that, with some resourcefulness, one can invariably match up the crimes and there is no problem with dual criminality.
	If we are asked to execute a European arrest warrant, our courts will not be able to refuse to do that on the ground that we disagree with the legal classification of the offence. We will be bound by the classification made by the issuing authority.

Tony Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman oppose the European arrest warrant in principle, or is it the detail or the drafting that causes him problems?

John Burnett: I do not oppose it in principle, but there have to be minimum safeguards and conditions. That is what I am trying to advocate.
	Regrettably, we are committed to those provisions, and they sweep away the crucial safeguard of dual criminality. That long-standing and powerful principle is a protection against abuse. The Home Affairs Committee helpfully recommends in paragraph 31 that, in each case, a district judge should look at the terms of the offence specified in the European arrest warrant and state whether dual criminality applies. If the offence is not a crime in the United Kingdom, the decision should be referred to the Home Secretary. I am anxious to know what practical steps are needed to achieve that important amendment.
	Clause 12 is not sufficiently tight in relation to double jeopardy, which occurs from time to time throughout Europe. Lorry drivers are particularly vulnerable as they can be charged on the same facts in more than one country, but with different offences. Like most hon. Members, we are concerned about the Executive's wide discretion to designate states as category 1 or 2 territories. The Bill provides that that can be done by an Order in Council. It does not provide for guidance covering the choice of territories and the Order in Council is subject only to annulment by negative resolution of the House. Again, as the Home Affairs Committee points out, it enables any country to be designated a category 1or 2 territory. There is nothing to prevent an Order in Council from designating a country that has not signed up to the framework decision as a category 1 territory, so a highly unsuitable country may be promoted for a pragmatic reason. I hope that the Government will table amendments in Committee along the lines suggested in paragraphs 41 and 43 of the Select Committee's report.
	I believe that a prima facie case should be made. I am aware that changes to that were made some time ago between EU countries, as the Minister explained, but it should be preserved for category 2 territories. Furthermore, the rule of speciality should be preserved in all respects for all extraditions. That means securing that a requesting state proceeds against an individual only on the facts and for the offence for which he or she is sought for extradition. I agree that for that reason clause 53 should be deleted in its entirety.
	Finally, there is no justification for extending category 1 status to any country that maintains the death penalty. That is because the clause 15 bar is not absolute. As the Home Office admitted, it will be possible to designate non-EU countries as category 1 countries and it is conceivable that such a country would retain the death penalty on its statute book. That is reason enough to justify the proposition that part 1 should not be extended to include any countries that still use the death penalty as a form of punishment.
	We have reservations about many other matters, although they are more appropriate for deliberation in Committee. My colleagues and I thought long and hard about our attitude to Second Reading. As I said, there are practical reasons why the extradition system should be less bureaucratic and swifter, but on no issue and in no circumstances can we justify reducing the proper judicial safeguards and other safeguards to which all citizens are entitled. There is a case for reforming extradition law, but not for abandoning the safeguards to which I referred.
	The Bill has fundamental flaws that must be remedied in Committee. I am glad that the Minister has not closed the door on amendments. I was also pleased to hear the Under-Secretary's comments. However, unless there is root-and-branch change, we shall vote against the Bill in future proceedings in this House and the other place.

Ross Cranston: The Bill is long overdue, but I have several concerns on which I hope to be reassured in the winding-up speech and during the Bill's progress through the two Houses.
	The Government's approach has been to expose the Bill to criticism. A draft Bill was prepared on which the Joint Committee on Human Rights produced a report and the Home Affairs Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), commented. That is all to the benefit of the House. Too often, Bills are presented to us and we do not have the time to consider them properly. In this case, the approach has been correct. There may be disagreements about what we should do about the Bill but at least we know the issues because they have been exposed.
	There is no doubt that the law of extradition is out of date. To some extent, it dates back to 1870, when the law divided the world into the empire and the rest. Although there have been changes since then, the case for updating the law is strong.
	There are practical difficulties with the administration of extradition law at present—my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned its cost. The procedures are often dragged out and too much time is taken. In addition, with cross-border crime, we need a law that more readily addresses the issues. My hon. Friends have raised international drug dealing and trafficking in children.
	Concerns have been raised about part 1. There are advantages in its drafting because considerable safeguards have been inserted. The bars to extradition are flagged up in clause 11 and developed in later clauses. The provisions mean that we shall not automatically extradite to category 1 countries. There are bars on double jeopardy. In response to an intervention, my right hon. Friend said that the provisions would have to take into account the Criminal Justice Bill. That is not a major problem, but he gave a welcome reassurance.
	Clause 13 refers to extraneous circumstances. We shall not extradite people where they might be pursued for political or religious opinions. That is a good thing. There is, of course, the question of definition. In the Shayler case, the French court refused to extradite Shayler to this country on the ground that it was a political offence, so there can be disagreement about what extraneous circumstances might entail. However, there is a valuable barrier that will operate in our domestic law.
	The barrier imposed in respect of the death penalty has already been mentioned. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and Liberty have raised issues about the assurance that we shall have to receive, and to what extent it will be carried out in practice. We already have considerable experience of that issue in extraditions to the United States. As the Bill is considered, it will be helpful to hear how in practice the provision will operate with countries other than the United States.
	The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) mentioned speciality, which is a valuable barrier that will operate on extradition. There are other barriers. into which I need not go, that relate, for example, to persons who have been convicted in their absence and are being pursued by the requesting state.
	There are two concerns that I should raise. The first involves the list of offences. It goes without saying that I would have preferred the list to be in the Bill. In a way, we are being asked to approve a Bill when we do not know, without referring to another document, what we are voting for. However, I understand the difficulties. It would be necessary to produce a composite definition involving offences in all the jurisdictions in the European Union in relation to the list. There is great merit in the Home Affairs Committee's recommendation in paragraph 55 of its report: if the list is to be extended in any way, Ministers should explain to the House when countries are being added to category 1.

Derek Conway: The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a telling point. I am sure that he heard the Minister of State say that the list could be extended by the Council of Ministers. I was not sure from the right hon. Gentleman's contribution whether that meant that the matter would return to the House for scrutiny or whether there could be an Executive power in conjunction with the other members of the Council of Ministers.

Ross Cranston: The difficulty is that, for members of the European Union, in many ways, decisions are made by the Executives of the different countries. The Parliaments of the different jurisdictions will have to rubber-stamp, as it were, the proposals that are made. That is the nature of membership of the EU. That arises in many federations. Executives of federations agree on a policy, and the Parliaments, states, provinces or whatever are asked to give approval. In many instances, legislators are presented with a fait accompli. The Select Committee is recommending that, in that case, the Government should explain the matter to the House so that at least we can be reassured on what has been decided.
	The protections of the European convention on human rights that are built into the Bill are extremely important. Xenophobia is a listed offence. Article 8—freedom of speech—might well be brought to bear in extradition in relation to that offence. I am concerned that the list is not in the Bill, but I accept that there are practical reasons for that. At the same time, there is great merit in what the Select Committee said about a fall-back position.
	The Select Committee also recommended that a district judge might certify that there is not dual criminality and that then the Home Secretary—

David Cameron: I do not want to be oily but the hon. and learned Gentleman has considerable legal expertise. We thought long and hard on the Select Committee before submitting the suggestion to which he referred. Will he tell us whether, from his experience, it would amend the European arrest warrant to make it something that we had not signed up to, or whether it would be an acceptable way of making the procedure work and provide an extra safeguard?

Ian Lucas: Do not give free advice.

Ross Cranston: Perhaps my hon. Friend is right.
	At this stage, I can only say that I see some merit in the suggestion. I want the Government to consider the point seriously in Committee. It seems to have a certain value.

Richard Shepherd: The hon. and learned Gentleman took comfort in the fact that there was a back-stop in the European Court of Human Rights, but states already have xenophobia as an offence as part of their legal codes. That has presumably been acceptable to the Court, which would therefore be no protection in a collision between the freedom of expression that we respect and the criminal code of other countries.

Ross Cranston: Yes, there is no doubt about that. I shall shortly consider the operation of legal systems in other countries that have often got the green light in decisions by the European Court of Human Rights even though one may doubt whether they are human rights-compliant. Clause 21, however, says that judges have to address the human rights point. In theory, they could decide—I do not suggest that this is a strong possibility—that, even though the warrant relates to xenophobia, that runs contrary to article 8 in the European convention on the freedom of speech and that extradition should not take place. As I said, the list of offences gives rise to concerns. During consideration of the Bill, the Government may well introduce changes to assure us that the bars on extradition will operate robustly.
	I have already foreshadowed the fact that even though countries may be members of the European Union or, in a wider context, the Council of Europe, we are not always reassured by the operation of their criminal justice systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South mentioned people being on remand for substantial periods, and I certainly have knowledge of that. It would be invidious to mention particular countries, but the system in some EU countries or, more widely, European convention or Council of Europe countries, does not always reassure us about the extent to which human rights are taken into account in practice.
	I am reassured by the robust approach of our courts in, for example, the recent Ramda decision, when the High Court said that the fact that France was a signatory to the European convention on human rights was not a complete answer. The courts have also said that they are not prepared, in asylum cases, for example, to accept what Germany does. France and Germany, one may think, have systems comparable to ours but our courts, taking a closer look, have said that they are not prepared to accept at face value the extent to which human rights operate there.
	Clause 21 will therefore be extremely important in the operation of the system. We must work on the assumption that each EU member and, possibly, each signatory to the European convention has a criminal justice system in which human rights are recognised and which complies with article 6 and the fair trial provision. Clause 21 opens up the possibility that the subject of the warrant can say, XIn these circumstances, the operation of the system will not be human rights-compliant," which will be of considerable reassurance to hon. Members.
	In conclusion, the Bill is overdue, the system is in need of considerable reform—it is weighed down by an accretion of law going back more than a century—and the problem of cross-border crime needs to be addressed. None the less, we cannot give the Bill unequivocal approval because some matters still require the Government's urgent attention—the list of category 1 offences and the fact that some category 1 countries, although they may generally operate in compliance with the European convention, may not in practice meet that standard.

Derek Conway: As a simple and humble man—I know that my colleagues share that view—I hesitate to intrude on what, on such an occasion, can be a lawyer fest. When introducing the Bill to the House, the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety used tempered words, which were very convincing indeed. However, before the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) gets too excited, the response of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) was utterly devastating. I do not think that he is a lawyer, but I would hate to appear against him as the defence—his performance was extremely impressive, and many of his points will be difficult for the Under-Secretary to answer in his winding-up speech.
	On many occasions, I have listened in the Chamber to Ministers' tempered words and the honeyed assurances of lawyers. In fact, they came from a Conservative Government. When the House was considering the Single European Act such was the effectiveness of those reasonable words that they even secured the enthusiasm of Baroness Thatcher and Lord Tebbit. I see one or two faces in the Chamber this afternoon who, like me, were less persuaded. Sadly, however, my right hon. and hon. Friends fell for those honeyed words, only to regret it later. When legislation is introduced which, whatever people say, extends the power of European states, the House should tread with great care.
	The report produced by the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) makes for interesting reading. The House should take its advice and exercise great caution. The Bill has been described as an attack on civil liberties, and I have not yet heard a convincing rebuttal of that charge. Our Front Bench spokesmen are right to oppose the Bill—I shall join them tonight—and the introduction of a European arrest warrant. It is not right to extradite Britons for offences that are not crimes in the United Kingdom—that is not acceptable to our constituents. The thought of foreign police being able to initiate the arrest of a British citizen in the UK for something that is not a crime here will go down very badly with the British public. The Minister graciously gave way to me, but did not deal with my point about the 32 serious offences that may cause UK citizens to be handed over to a foreign power, even though they will not have committed a crime here.

Nick Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the reverse is acceptable? Does he believe that if someone comes here and commits a crime under our law, but can argue that it is not a crime in his country, we should not extradite him?

Derek Conway: I am not sure that I do—it depends on the crime. People have a right to expect protection from the Government of the country where they are citizens. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman reads The Daily Telegraph—I know that it is not the most popular newspaper among Government Members—but Lord Scott, a Law Lord, commented in it that the definition of a xenophobia offence in the schedule to the Bill
	Xwould almost certainly cover the distribution of Biggles and probably the Old Testament".
	I am too young to understand the reference to Biggles, but some of my hon. Friends may have read about him—perhaps it would cause offence in continental Europe. However, people who take such books abroad with them as holiday reading should not risk being arrested when they return to Britain.
	The definition of political opinions is more serious and much more worrying. The process of extradition may well be imperfect, but it could cause us to risk sending British citizens abroad for trial. I do not believe that there is a Member on either side of the House who would challenge the proposition that appalling crimes should be dealt with. No reasonable person believes that a national or geographical border should hamper ultimate justice, but provision already exists in English law to protect that process.
	I believe the Bill to be another brick—a very heavy brick—in the growing temple of the European state. It goes agin what Britons have held and continue to hold dear, which is not only sovereignty, but the protection of our citizens in our country. I hope that the measure fails to obtain a Second Reading tonight.

Ian Lucas: I speak as a lawyer—a former lawyer, I should stress—and I aspire to the humbleness to which the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) referred. When one approaches the issue as a former lawyer, it is important to be aware of one's current responsibilities to represent one's constituents. While there is always the temptation to become enmeshed in legal argument when dealing with such legislation, there is also always a requirement to look at the big picture concerning the enforcement of the law in respect of serious criminal offences which are borne from abroad into our country and also to consider the attitude of our constituents to such offences and the way in which the law operates against them.
	I welcome the Bill in general terms, and I welcome one aspect of it that has not yet been mentioned. In general terms, I do not like politicians being intimately involved in the judicial process. That concept has had its day. The Home Secretary has on a number of occasions encountered difficulties in the courts in recent times, on subjects such as mandatory life sentences. As a former lawyer and now a politician, I believe that it is better for criminal justice cases to be dealt with, as much as possible, in the criminal courts. I have confidence in the existing judicial process, and I believe that the Bill contains substantial safeguards that would enable our judiciary to exercise discretion in favour of any individual whose human rights it considered were being substantially interfered with by the Act, as it would then be.

Ross Cranston: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point about politicians not being involved in judicial decisions. Of course, when the Home Secretary exercises that jurisdiction, he acts in a quasi-judicial way, but that still means that he can be subject to criticism. I agree with my hon. Friend. The point has not been mentioned and it is valuable.

Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. The intricacies and traps that exist in a quasi-judicial process were fully exhibited in the Pinochet case, which caused all sorts of judicial and ministerial problems at the time. Such a situation should be avoided as far as possible in the future.
	I am conscious that we are discussing heartfelt individual rights, and it is important that those rights are always taken very seriously by all hon. Members. I know that there are Members, particularly Opposition Members, who have taken that view for many years, both in government and in opposition. I respect that viewpoint, but I believe that the legislation will provide the necessary safeguards, although in certain respects it can be improved.
	We must accept that the extradition system is outmoded. It is largely the child of the 19th century—we have heard reference to legislation from 1870. It is based on the concept that the British criminal justice system is inherently superior to any other criminal justice system that has ever existed or still exists. When I was preparing for the debate, I had in mind the type of attitude exhibited by Lord Palmerston in the Don Pacifico case, and that impression was reinforced by some of the interventions and references from the Opposition today. I am glad that I looked out the statement in which Lord Palmerston, in a five-hour address to the House back in 1850, said:
	Xas the Roman, in days of old, held himself free from indignity, when he could say Civis romanus sum; so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him against injustice and wrong."
	[Hon. Members: XHear, hear."] I sensed that that would be the reaction from Opposition Members, but I think that we have moved on from that attitude. I find it surprising that the Opposition consider the criminal justice system in this country to be perfect. There have been substantial miscarriages of justice in recent years, which must cast doubt upon the strength of our system. There are good arguments to support the contention that certain aspects of systems in various parts of Europe are better than ours. We can respect other criminal justice systems in Europe, and build a sensible extradition system on the basis of mutual respect and mutual recognition.

Simon Hughes: I accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition entirely, but does he accept that the evidence shows that we cannot generalise? Some of the other EU countries are unexceptionable and have all the safeguards that we would wish, but those who practise regularly in courts in those countries and in the UK note that certain countries, of which Belgium and France are two, do not have the same level of safeguards. There are regular problems. We must therefore be clear about the generality and note where the standards do not rise to the level that we would expect as minimum legal requirements for our citizens.

Ian Lucas: In any system of justice, one must be watchful and always safeguard the rights of the individuals whose liberty is in question in the courts. I do not believe that the British criminal justice system is inherently superior to any other system in Europe. In a modern world we need to devise an extradition system that is responsive to the needs of our country and of our constituents.
	I am conscious that in the debate today, we have heard little about international crime, which is an issue of profound concern to many of my constituents in Wrexham, in north Wales. Those people are worried about international trafficking in class A drugs. Given that we have an extradition system that is still based largely on concepts from the late 19th century, when it was rare indeed for my constituents to travel to England—mine is a border constituency, 5 miles from the border—we ought to be considering ways of improving the system to ensure that it is responsive to international organised trafficking and crime at a level that is unprecedented in our history.
	At times like this, as a former lawyer, I try to become a politician. Although I have concerns that have been bred into me through my training, I must also listen to the concerns that I hear from my constituents—the anxiety about serious crime and the threat to their children from the blight of drugs in their community. As always in these matters, one must exercise a degree of balance. It is difficult to do so, particularly when one is dealing with the individual liberties of anyone who appears before the courts.
	I am sure that in Committee, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), whom I know well, will listen carefully to all the matters put to him, and will respond to them in due course with well reasoned and well considered arguments.
	I welcome the fact that the procedure is a judicial procedure and that it will be swift. The Minister referred to the time and expense that the current procedure involves for the criminal justice system. In the context of the Criminal Justice Bill, that money could be better spent on assisting drug addicts, better sentencing or improving our court structure than on antiquated, protracted and technical extradition procedures. Although I have some concerns, I welcome the general thrust of the Bill in that regard.
	I commend the way in which the Bill has been considered to date and greatly welcome the publication of draft legislation, which allows points to be made and will lead to a general improvement in legislation. I understand that the Bill has been considered by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, a European Standing Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Select Committee on Home Affairs. We are still at a stage at which not everyone is happy, even on the Labour Benches, with every aspect of the provisions, but I am sure that that process has improved them. The scrutiny will continue, as I am sure will the improvement.

Simon Hughes: There was a lot of scrutiny and the publication of the draft Bill was welcome, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand the concern felt by many of us that we still have a procedure of accountability that serves us poorly. The Under-Secretary knows that Ministers end up presenting proposals to Committees several months after they have been debated and when there may have been significant changes, and that there is nothing that we can do about it.

Ian Lucas: I am sure that the Government are aware of that problem, which needs to be addressed. None the less, I think that they believe in increased scrutiny. For example, I do not believe that any Government who contemplated reducing scrutiny would introduce draft legislation. We all agree that that is an exceptionally good innovation and that it will lead to better legislation in due course.
	I mentioned that I had some concerns about the Bill. My major concerns are twofold. First, the list of individual offences that has been mentioned is not set out in the Bill. I would like to be satisfied that, if the list were to be extended, there would be due opportunity to consider the matter and ensure proper scrutiny.
	Secondly, I am unhappy about the provisions relating to the death penalty—an issue about which I feel very strongly on a moral basis and, speaking as somebody who has been intimately involved with the courts professionally, as a result of the failures of the judicial process. Indeed, many such cases have been a matter of public record. I cannot feel comfortable with the clause 91 provisions on the death penalty and the written assurance that is to be given to the Secretary of State. There are compelling arguments for the view of the Home Affairs Committee that no country that has the death penalty should be admitted to category 1. I would be very uneasy in any circumstances about the extradition of any individual to a country that maintained the death penalty.

Bob Ainsworth: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no intention on the Government's part and no desire in the USA—the main country that we are talking about in terms of extradition—to propose consideration for entry into category 1. However, we have extradited people in fairly substantial numbers to the United States, many of them potentially in respect of capital offences, without any problem, having received the assurances that are set out. There is no intention of watering down assurances about capital punishment in respect of either category 1 or category 2 or allowing extradition so that people can be executed.

Ian Lucas: I am pleased and reassured by the Minister's assurance. I know well and greatly admire the stance that the Government have taken on the death penalty internationally. My concern is that the written assurances would relate not only to the United States, but to another country that has not been specified at this stage. I wonder whether we can rely on written assurances from other Governments on the same basis as that on which we rely on those of the United States.

Annabelle Ewing: I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about clause 91 and, indeed, clause 15, which deals with the same issue. I find very worrying the language saying that we must rely on a judgment made by the Secretary of State. Even in the United States, the death penalty process can take a decade or even longer. At what point will the assurance become less assuring, given that the process takes so long?

Ian Lucas: I shall leave the Under-Secretary to respond in due course.

Harry Cohen: The Government rightly ask for assurances from the United States, but other Governments or even individual Ministers who are more supportive of the death penalty may decide not to ask for such assurances. Is my hon. Friend taking that into account?

Ian Lucas: I take my hon. Friend's point, but the Bill relates to this country, so although our ambit is wide, I think that his approach is rather Palmerstonian. Perhaps we should restrict our discussions to the United Kingdom.
	I should like to take up one further point in relation to the speech of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who often makes great play in the House of terminological exactitude and the importance of being very specific. Indeed, that was part of his criticism of the Government's position, but in that context, it would be appropriate in future for him to make it clear whether, in talking about the United Kingdom, he is talking about England and Wales, Scotland or the United Kingdom as a whole. As an Englishman who is proud to represent a Welsh constituency, I know that a large number of my constituents would not take kindly to the attitude that he took in his speech. Indeed, it may go some way towards explaining why the Opposition have no representative of Wales in the House.

John Maples: I thought for a moment that the Government had found a supporter in the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), but I am afraid that his speech was less unequivocal than it had seemed it would be. So far, the Government have failed to find unequivocal support among their Back Benchers.
	I firmly believe—the Minister referred to me in this respect—that we must reform our extradition legislation. I believe equally firmly that the Bill is the wrong reform. I have no problem with part 2, although I shall mention one or two minor concerns, but I have very serious problems with part 1, which was effectively demolished by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Indeed, one is tempted to leave it at that, say XIt's over to you" and ask the Minister to explain why those are not killer objections.
	I came to this issue after 11 September when I discovered that some suspects who were wanted in the United States and France for terrorist offences had been in this country fighting extradition for a very long time. I raised the issue, referring to all the suspects, when the Prime Minister made his statement immediately after 11 September. There were four of them, but I was horrified to find on checking the matter at the end of last week that they are all still here. Three people are wanted for the African embassy bombings in August 1998 and are still here four years later. It took the courts a long time to deal with their cases, but the House of Lords dismissed all their appeals on 17 December last year. Nearly a year has passed, yet the Home Secretary has failed to decide whether to deport them. He can hardly blame the state of current legislation when he cannot make decisions in a year.
	The case of Rachid Ramda has already been mentioned. He was arrested in November 1995 at the request of the French authorities for the Metro bombings in the summer of that year in which many people were killed. He managed to drag out the time before the case reached the House of Lords until May 1999—nearly four years after he was arrested. He dropped his appeal, and it was up to the Home Secretary to decide whether to remove him. It took the Home Secretary 29 months—nearly two and a half years—to make a decision. It has been reviewed by the divisional court and is back in the Home Secretary's hands. Rachid Ramda has therefore been here for seven years.
	I raised the matter with the Prime Minister and said that it was a scandal. He replied that it was the law's fault. That is partly true. I agree that the law provides for far too many appeals and stages of the process. Part 2 goes a long way towards tackling that. However, the problem is also due to the courts being incredibly dilatory. I do not know how judges can look at themselves in the mirror when terrorist offences occur around the world and they know the obstacles that they unnecessarily place in the way of justice. People are entitled to a fair hearing but not to drag out proceedings for seven years. The Home Secretary should not blame the law or the courts when he has been dilatory in exercising his functions.
	The courts can deal with such matters quickly. For example, the Pinochet case was heard three times in 15 months in the House of Lords. It is possible to do things quickly if there is enough political pressure to do so.
	I agree that we need new legislation. We need to reduce the number of appeals and have a faster procedure for countries whose judicial systems we trust and respect. However, part 1 removes almost all the protections that have been constructed over many years. They include dual criminality and the Home Secretary's final discretion. Provisions for prima facie evidence have already gone. Those matters have been at the heart of our extradition law for a long time. That does not mean that they are bad. It has taken a long time to build up those freedoms in this country. I do not know Labour Members' view of history before May 1997, but we have a history of constructing individual freedoms against the power of Governments. We should not discard them lightly, as the Bill does.
	I want to consider part 1, to which I have the greatest objections. The list of offences is vague. A law graduate who worked for the parliamentary draftsman and produced the list as proposed legislation would not survive the probation period. It is so vague that it defines nothing that would pass muster in our law. For example, what does participation in a criminal organisation mean? What is computer-related crime? The categories are too vague and too wide and are unacceptable.
	It is our job to protect our subjects' liberties unless a process of law deprives them of it; the Extradition Bill provides for such a process. Unless the offences and the process are clear, we do not honour our obligation. It is wrong simply to refer to the framework decision to justify such vague offences. Most of them exist in our law, and we could define them adequately. We could define racial hatred, although xenophobia does not exist. Some computer-related crimes are offences in our law. We should define them and let our citizens know when they are in danger. We should have clear law, not a vague list of offences that is imported from a framework directive.

Nick Palmer: The choice is between listing categories of offence and individual offences. The hon. Gentleman implies that we should list every offence that might apply so that people know exactly where they stand. Does he not agree that the problem is that although we have a definition of racial hatred, it may be slightly different from, for example, that in Portugal? Does he suggest that we assemble a list of all possible crimes in every European Union country to which we might be prepared to apply the Bill?

John Maples: The Bill removes the defence of dual criminality. If it continued to exist, I would not have a problem because the person whose extradition was sought could use the defence that the action was not criminal in both jurisdictions. However, that defence will no longer be available, so I believe that we should define the crimes more closely and carefully.

Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful, for example, on racism and xenophobia, if the draft framework decision, which we recently considered in the European Scrutiny Committee, at least made it clear that
	Xan offence was not committed unless the behaviour is threatening, abusive or insulting and is carried out with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, or is likely to do so"?

John Maples: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Of course, the problem would not exist if the defence of dual criminality remained. However, I am amazed that Ministers allowed the directive to appear in that form, with incredibly vague wording. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If Ministers are determined to maintain a category of offence for which dual criminality is not available as a defence, it is incumbent on them to tighten the drafting.
	European Union directives and regulations and the European Acts are worded vaguely. That is acceptable in many European jurisdictions, but it is not acceptable to us. We define matters tightly in law, and we should not make the Bill an exception, especially as the liberty of British subjects is at stake.
	I should be happy with part 1 if dual criminality remained a defence. It is an absolutely fundamental protection in our extradition law, but the Bill removes it. It also removes the Home Secretary's final discretion about whether to extradite someone. At least a British subject has someone—the Home Secretary—who is accountable to a democratically elected Parliament for his final decision. As I said earlier, we have already dropped the requirement for prima facie evidence.
	Where will we extradite people? I do not have problems with France, although the divisional court in the Ramda case does. I do not have problems with most European jurisdictions, but that does not apply to them all. Has any hon. Member not had a constituent languishing in a Spanish jail for months awaiting charge and trial? Let us consider the recent case of the plane spotters in Greece. The point was made that if they had returned from their holiday, the photographs had subsequently appeared and they had been charged under the Greek terrorism Act, they would have been on the plane to Greece, with no defence. The hon. Member for Wrexham would have found it difficult to explain to his constituents, whose will he believes he is doing, if someone's son, daughter, father, mother, husband or wife was on the plane without a sniff of a defence that they had committed no offence in British law and no facts had been established.

Ian Lucas: Were not the Greek plane spotters acquitted?

John Maples: After an extremely long time and a ridiculous, farcical procedure. I pray the case in aid as an example of a jurisdiction the equality of whose justice with ours I do not accept. I am prepared to accept that of France, Germany, Sweden or the United States. However, that does not apply to all the countries, and I have cited two examples.
	The Bill will apply not only to existing but to new members of the European Union. Twelve years ago, some were communist countries and they have no tradition of impartial and independent judges. Their tradition is heavily politically motivated. Turkey may become a member of the European Union. There are so many awful stories about the administration of Turkish justice to foreign citizens that we would have serious difficulties if the Bill applied to Turkey.
	The European convention on human rights is not adequate protection. We should include a requirement for minimum standards in the Bill. The Government clearly recognise the problem because two clauses deal with extraneous considerations. One appeared in a previous draft and the other did not. Their inclusion suggests that the Government accept the possibility of a category 1 jurisdiction seeking to pursue someone on the grounds of race, religion, nationality or political opinion. The incorporation of a human rights provision in clause 21 adds protection. The Government therefore appear to accept that that is necessary and that the jurisdictions are not perfect.
	The other offences that the Bill covers at least require dual criminality to be proved. That makes them reasonably acceptable. I do not have great problems with category 2 because prima facie evidence is required in most cases, but it can be waived if the Government identify specific countries for which it is not required. Again, however, the Home Secretary's ultimate protection is very limited.
	Under clause 193, the Home Secretary's discretion to disallow someone's extradition is severely curtailed. He would have to do it either in pursuance of statutory authority or in circumstances in which he had exempted the person from the possibility of prosecution. It would also have to be done in the interests of national security. I would suggest that that does not go wide enough. We need to go further, and at least include the provision that someone should not be extradited if a serious miscarriage of justice were likely to occur, or if the national interest required it. The Home Secretary is the right person to make such decisions.
	I want to identify a couple of other weaknesses in the Bill. In many continental jurisdictions an investigating magistrate is entitled to arrest people in the course of his investigation, to examine them as witnesses and to collect evidence. Under the Bill, if such a magistrate had signed an arrest warrant he would be able to arrest someone, who might not then be charged for a long time, if at all.
	I am also concerned that, under subsections (4) to (6) of clause 63, there is a possibility of a British Minister's extradition being sought by a category 1 country for something that that country might define as a war crime. I shall return to this matter in Committee or on Report, or perhaps the Minister will be able to deal with it when he replies to this debate. In the Pinochet case, a Spanish magistrate issued a warrant for Pinochet's arrest for something that had not happened in Spain or the United Kingdom. In the very special circumstances of that case, he was not extradited. Although few of us had a lot of personal sympathy with General Pinochet, we should not allow that to colour the fact that there could be a very dangerous hole in the law.
	Let us take a relevant example that might touch a nerve with the Government. Our bombing of Kosovo was almost certainly illegal under international law. It is impossible to find a serious international lawyer who thinks that it was not. It may have been the right thing to do, but it was certainly illegal. Greece was very sympathetic to the Serbs in that conflict. I would like to be assured that the Bill could not be used in similar circumstances to those of the Pinochet case by, for example, a Greek magistrate bringing a prosecution against a British Minister for their action in connection with the Kosovo conflict, or to prosecute a Minister in the then Conservative Government over their action in the Falklands, as it could be argued that one or two things done there were outside the remit of international law. Ministers are responsible to the House for their actions, and I would like an assurance that that could not happen.
	We have seen the consequence of this with the plane spotters, and the provisions could have all sorts of other hypothetical consequences. A British citizen could be investigated on the say-so of an investigating magistrate for a vaguely defined offence that was not an offence in the United Kingdom, with no prima facie case having been established, and no democratic accountability. That person could languish in a foreign jail for a long time without being charged, let alone tried. That is unacceptable, which is why I shall vote against part 1. I do not understand how anyone could vote for it.
	I would like to suggest some possible amendments. First, the rule covering dual criminality should be retained in all cases. There should be no distinction between offences in the framework decision and offences outside it.

Nick Palmer: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman the same question as I asked the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway). Does he believe that, if someone commits an offence in Britain that is not an offence in his home country, that should be a sufficient defence?

John Maples: Yes, I do, because I want that protection for our citizens. It is our job to protect the liberty of our citizens, and if the price to pay for that is that someone who commits an offence here goes back to Germany, Spain, Greece or wherever and cannot be extradited for that reason, I absolutely accept that. It is unlikely to occur in what we would consider to be very serious cases, such as crimes of violence, armed robbery, murder, or terrorism. It is likely to involve only trivial cases involving dealing in some of the less important kinds of drugs, for example, or photographing military aircraft in Greece. I do not think that the security of our country or the integrity of its criminal justice system will fall because of this issue.

Gareth Thomas: I am intrigued that the hon. Gentleman has referred to possible amendments. To what extent does he envisage that there should be an exact correspondence between these offences in different jurisdictions? Does he also feel that his overriding view in favour of streamlining the present system is consistent with his views on the dual criminality issue?

John Maples: Yes, I do, because I have said that I would be perfectly happy if part 1 required dual criminality for both sets of offences—those in the framework document and those outside it. It is required for those outside it. If it were required for those within it, there would not be a problem. As to whether my amendments are consistent with the obligations to the European Union that we have undertaken, the answer is that I do not know. Clearly some exemptions are consistent, because the Government have already put them into the Bill, including those relating to extraneous considerations, human rights and one or two other things. Those are clearly acceptable. If my proposals are not consistent with those obligations, I hope that it will be the will of the House that the Government should go back and renegotiate, because what they have negotiated is absolutely unacceptable.
	I shall continue through my list of possible amendments. If we cannot reintroduce dual criminality for everything, it would be right to adopt the amendment suggested by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which proposed that a judge should certify that the case would not pass the dual criminality test, and that the Home Secretary should then take the final decision on it. I also agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and his Committee that we should not lower the standard in this regard from three years to 12 months. I do not know why we have chosen to introduce a lower standard. The framework decision requires a maximum sentence of at least three years, and I cannot think why we have reduced it to 12 months.
	The Home Secretary should have wider discretion under clause 193 than he has, and it should relate to questions of national interest, rather than national security. Category 1 offences should be confined not only to European Union countries but to those of whose judicial systems we in the House have specifically approved. There should be minimum standards, and, under the Bill, a minimum guarantee that, if someone is extradited to another country, they should be charged within a certain time—a few weeks—and tried within a few months. If that does not happen, they should be returned.
	The Bill is just another example of the long list of freedoms with which the Government have become very careless. These freedoms are long held and hard won, and they are very valuable to the citizens of this country. Our history over the last 500 years has involved the acquisition by individuals of freedoms that used to be held in the power of the state. The Government are reversing that process in the interest of getting a few more convictions. Jury trial is being seriously circumscribed, and the presumption of innocence dramatically reduced in some cases. The burden of proof is being shifted in some cases, the admissibility of previous convictions is now being considered, and the double jeopardy rule is to change. All those provisions are being compromised. They are fundamental principles of our criminal law and of our rights and freedoms as British citizens, and the Government are getting very careless with them.
	In some ways, the Extradition Bill represents the worst of all the proposed changes. At least in the other cases a British court and judge would try a person—often with a jury—in their own country and in a language that they understood. If a person is extradited, none of those things will apply. They will probably not understand the language, the law will not be familiar, and it will operate in a system that they do not understand and in which they may not have much confidence. In some ways, therefore, these freedoms are the worst ones to erode.
	It seems that just about every Labour Member who has spoken—and who has thought about this—shares some, if not all, of my reservations. I hope, therefore, that there can be cross-party consensus and that we can collectively make the Government think again about this Bill. I want to know how Government supporters who do not vote against the Bill will explain—as I know I could not—to a constituent why their mother, father, son, daughter, husband or wife has been extradited under this procedure, as one of those plane spotters might have been, and is languishing in a foreign jail awaiting trial, as constituents of mine have done in Spanish jails.

Nick Palmer: I would like to apologise to the Front-Bench speakers for the fact that, owing to Committee work, I was unable to attend the early part of the debate. I apologise to the House more generally if I inadvertently duplicate any points that have already been made.
	As a starting point, we need to stress that the current position is not satisfactory. We are not living in an ideal world in which extradition works perfectly, in which wrongdoers are invariably returned to the country in which they committed an offence, or in which we can sit back and feel that we must not disturb this idyll because any change would be a change for the worse.
	Now, when we attempt to extradite someone who has committed or is alleged to have committed a crime in another country, it normally takes us about 18 months and costs the taxpayer #125,000. It is reasonable to ask whether that process is necessary for the exercise of fairness and justice. None of us wants justice to be accelerated to the extent that people are sent back under some sort of summary decision and then treated cruelly and unjustly in another country, but most people who have had anything to do with extradition accept that the current process is abnormally cumbersome.
	Conversely, when we attempt to extradite people in other countries who we believe have committed crimes in Britain, the process usually takes at least a year, and quite often we fail to get the necessary extradition order, especially when financial crime is involved. That, too, strikes most people as unfair—that a person who lives in Britain and commits a crime will, we hope, be brought to court and so to justice, but if, before the crime is detected, the person escapes to the Cote d'Azur or some other location within the European Union, he will have a sporting chance of not being returned for a long time, and perhaps not at all. Most people would agree that that does not seem a sensible way in which to proceed.
	Some argue for what one might describe as the lowest common denominator of European offences. They say that they would be willing to apply a more rapid extradition process, but only where dual criminality applies, which is to say that the offence allegedly committed in another country is also an offence in Britain. The effect, if all those bilateral decisions were applied, would be that the only international extradition network that functioned efficiently would be in respect of crimes that were crimes throughout the EU.
	Some go yet further and argue for the application of what one might describe as the British common denominator. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), who is no longer in his place, argued that we should protect British citizens who return to Britain from overseas from having foreign laws applied to them, but we should be able to apply British law to people who come to Britain, after they have returned to their own country and even if their own law exempts them. I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but if I have represented his argument correctly, I have to say that such a one-sided position is not sustainable in any serious EU discussion.
	I respect the different position held by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). He courageously accepts that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and that if we say that we will not allow a British person to be extradited for a crime that is not a crime under the British code, we will accept the reverse. He suggested that that would apply only in relatively trivial cases, but I would like to give a couple of concrete examples of the type of case that we are discussing, because I feel that our debate has been conducted in a vacuum, whereby we discuss everything in principle.
	My understanding is that, in Spain, the age of consent is 12. Sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old in Spain is legal, whereas in Britain it is an act of serious sexual abuse. If someone from Spain visited Britain and had sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old and it was detected the day after he returned to Spain, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would feel that it should not be a sufficient defence for that man to say that, in Spain, what he did would have been legal. Even if the hon. Gentleman does not wish to intervene on that point, he might like to reflect on it.
	Conversely, in Germany, for historical reasons with which we are all familiar, it is illegal to claim that the holocaust—the slaughter of millions of Jews and other people—never took place. It is illegal to do so because it is seen as giving aid and comfort to neo-Nazi groups who might want to revive past horrors. In Britain, because it has never been such a major issue, it is not illegal so to do. Anyone can go out on the street, grab people by the sleeve, and try to persuade them that the holocaust never happened. People would think it disgusting, but it would be legal. A couple of years ago, a well-known Englishman went to Germany, where he supported an extreme right-wing group which, among other things, claimed that the holocaust either did not happen or was grossly exaggerated. He then returned to Britain. Under German law, he had committed an offence. Under British law, he had not.
	If we deny the European arrest warrant, we are saying that neither the Spanish paedophile under British law, nor the extreme right-wing English historian under German law, should be prosecuted. Are we saying that? No, we are not. We are saying that we should not prosecute them if they happen to have crossed the border. We accept, and have always accepted, that if people commit an offence in a country that they are visiting, that country has a right to prosecute them. The only question at issue is whether the country still has the right to prosecute if the person who commits the offence crosses the border before the offence is noticed. That is the apparently holy principle to which hon. Members refer when they say that we have had 500 years of liberty and so on: the issue is not whether one can be prosecuted for an offence in another country, but whether we allow people to escape by crossing a border.
	Various suggestions have been made on how we might make exceptions to a dual criminality rule. The Home Affairs Committee suggested that a district judge should examine such cases, and if he or she determined that the crime in question was not covered by the British criminal code, the case should be referred to the Home Secretary. We all like to make life difficult for the Home Secretary—it is almost a national sport—but what is the Home Secretary supposed to do? Under the European Council's decision, he is compelled to decide that extradition is possible if the case comes under one of the listed categories, so in fact we are building in one of the notorious delays which, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon rightly said, are an unpleasant characteristic of the current system. We have someone who is accused of a crime that in another country is considered a serious matter, and everybody knows that he has to be sent back sooner or later, but we build in a clause that states that first his case must go to the Home Secretary, the Home Secretary has to think about it, and then say yes. That is not an advance. It imposes not an additional freedom, but additional delay.
	There is a tendency among defenders of liberty, whom I respect, to use delay as a defence of liberty. That is undesirable in principle. The idea that justice should be speedy is not wrong in itself, but we should impose delays only where that improves the quality of justice, rather than as a token extra step.
	I am sorry if the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon feels that I am getting at him, but I want to respond to what he said in his interesting speech. Another point—others made it by implication, without being as clear as he was—is that if we are to have exemptions from dual criminality, they should be specific. We should have a list of well defined offences so that we all know where we stand. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I have misrepresented him, but I think that that is his position.
	I am not sure how many serious criminal offences—Xserious" as defined in the Bill—exist in the British code, and in the French, German and other codes; but there are a great many. There are, for instance, a number of possible crimes under the heading XSexual abuse of children". I think most reasonable people would agree that we should not introduce a lot of legal hurdles in such cases, but should allow extradition even if the definition is not precisely the same in our country. In those circumstances, we would have to replace the broad category with a list of all the offences that we were prepared to accept. We would have to get the Home Office to inspect the Portuguese criminal code, offence by offence, saying, XYes, we will accept that one," or XNo, we will not accept that one."
	It would be the exception rather than the rule if the definition of the offences were identical in every EU country. If we are saying that not just categories but individual offences must be identified, we are giving our law-makers a momentous, mammoth, gargantuan task.

Annabelle Ewing: Some offences on the list simply do not exist in Scotland—sabotage, for example. Some definitional guidelines would give sheriffs an idea of what criminal conduct was being discussed.

Nick Palmer: It would be a good idea for the hon. Lady to look up the definition before visiting a country where sabotage is a criminal offence, if she was thinking of doing something that could reasonably be construed as sabotage. I remember when those applying for a visa before going to America had to sign a form saying that they were not planning to engage in terrorist activities. Currently, if the hon. Lady commits an act in Italy that constitutes sabotage according to the Italian code, she can be arrested and sent to prison for years. We are merely discussing whether, if she got out of Italy before she was caught—I hope she will forgive me for referring to her directly—that would allow her an exemption.
	The hon. Lady implies that we will all be able to travel freely until the Bill becomes law, and that we need not know what constitutes sabotage in foreign jurisdictions because it will not apply to us. That is not true. It will apply to us; indeed, it applies to us now. The only question is whether we can extradite people for it if they come back to this country.
	I think Members may agree, if they think further, that it is not practicable to descend to the level of the individual offence. They might be on slightly firmer ground if they suggested that the categories of offence should be recognised more in Britain.

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend will surely realise that while the offences in the framework document are generic offences, and such crimes are covered for the very reasons he has been giving—problems would be involved in doing anything else—when a Scottish judicial authority frames a warrant it will frame it in Scottish law. The offence will be very clear in Scottish law. It will meet the requirement in the framework document and the minimum sentencing requirement. When a warrant is received from a Danish or French judicial authority, the offence will again be spelled out clearly in Danish or French law. There will be no dubiety about the fact that an offence has been committed in one of those jurisdictions.

Nick Palmer: That is a good point. We should not give the impression that people will be extradited on the basis of a vague warrant that says, XWe think he carried out some sabotage"; the warrant will be very specific.

Annabelle Ewing: The sheriff will not know what it means.

Nick Palmer: At the risk of repeating myself, let me say that the hon. Lady will need to know what it means; otherwise she will be at risk when she travels today, regardless of the Bill.

Annabelle Ewing: Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough. It is of no concern to me whether an individual like me is aware of the criminal code in each EU state. The key point I was trying to make is that the court in Scotland would have to have an idea of what criminal conduct was being discussed. The Minister's response did not deal with that. Sabotage, for example, does not exist in Scots criminal law. With no guidelines on what is encompassed in that category, the sheriff—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must be more concise in an intervention.

Nick Palmer: I take the hon. Lady's point, but I think she is trying to smuggle in the idea that the Scottish, or the English, courts would have a second bite at the cherry and make an assessment of whether the crime had actually taken place. I think we must accept, when we are talking about extradition, that people are not tried at both ends. They are tried in the courts at the other end, under the law as defined at the other end.
	What we are discussing is whether there are certain categories of offence that are so serious that they warrant going beyond the principle of the lowest common denominator—whether, even if we accept that the law differs slightly from country to country, it is reasonable for the country against which such offences have been committed to ask for the extradition of the suspect. As most Members have accepted, this is very much a dual facility: either we get it for ourselves, or no one gets it. If we are fanatical and say that we will not extradite anyone unless they have clearly committed a crime that is also a crime in Britain, we are accepting that the Spanish paedophile and everyone else who commits a crime in Britain that is not a crime at home can escape scot free. I question whether our constituents wish us to do that.
	Several Members cited the plane spotters in Greece, asking how, if a constituent was one of them, we could justify the Greeks' entitlement to try them for the alleged offence. I think we would be on uneasy territory if we started discussing each individual case, but few Members would claim not to be able to find an example of a British court case with peculiar features, causing most to wonder why it had been brought. They say that hard cases make bad law. As most people would accept, we should not base the entire principle of mutual extradition within the European Union on the specific case of an unreasonable prosecution of a plane-spotter in Greece. If we do, we will be saying that if any country in the European Union sometimes brings a prosecution that we think unreasonable, as happens every month, if not every week, in Britain, we will not accept the principle of mutual extradition.
	What is more, it is less purist than that. People say that they accept the principle of mutual extradition but that they want it to take a long time: they want it to cost #125,000, to take 18 months, to clog up our courts, to go to higher courts, to the Court of Appeal, to the House of Lords and to the Home Secretary. It is so important to them that we preserve the distinction and protect the rights of the Spanish paedophile and the English right-wing historian that they are willing to accept that as the price.
	I doubt whether the average constituent who is not involved in a specific case would agree with that. Constituents who are involved in a specific case will always feel strongly that it is an outrage and should not happen. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) is pointing at his watch. I do not know whether he has an urgent engagement but I have not noticed a great flood of Conservative Members seeking to speak. When they flood in, I shall take care to give them adequate time.
	I raise some specific issues. I raised this one in European Standing Committee B: the impact of the internet on the entire process. Clause 63(2) on page 30 refers to the alleged crime occurring in a category 1 territory. If the offence is committed in Germany, as we have discussed, dual criminality may not be a necessary condition.
	Let us say that I set up a website written in the German language, marketed for readers in Germany and run through an internet server in Britain, and that I never set foot in Germany. Will I be liable under clause 63(2) because the offence has been committed in a category 1 territory, namely Germany? The question is: is it my location, or the location of the supposed victim, the person who is forced to read, let us say, neo-Nazi propaganda, which would be illegal in Germany?
	What would happen if I went to Germany and urged people to look at the website—if I did not when in Germany promote neo-Nazi views but encouraged people there to read my website? What if I gave interviews to the German media and said, XI have a website full of interesting things about Germany, and I urge you to read it," and then travelled back to Britain? Would I have committed an offence under German law? Would I have committed an offence on German territory? If I did not travel to Germany but placed an advertisement in the German media, would any offence have occurred in a category 1 territory?
	The Minister may feel that I am making a fine point, but it is the sort of thing that will come up more and more as the internet becomes our main source of information. The entire category of crimes that consists of making inflammatory statements that are illegal in a number of countries will become the subject of intense legislative debate, and it would be helpful if the Minister at some stage during the proceedings on the Bill were to address that issue.
	I do not wish to prevent all the Conservative Members who wish to speak from getting in, so I will bring my remarks gradually to a close. As has been pointed out, the opposition to this entire Bill is based on the underlying assumption that other courts cannot be trusted as much as ours. I do not say all other courts; I say some other courts.
	We must make a decision. We must decide whether we are prepared to have a common legal framework for serious crimes to the extent that we will trust each other to prosecute them. If we are not prepared to have that common trust, we will be saying that people can be war criminals, or sex offenders, that they can commit a wide range of serious offences, and that if they slip through the net of the current system, we will accept it because we do not trust the Greeks—look at the plane spotters. It is not reasonable.

Angus Robertson: The Birmingham Six.

Nick Palmer: The hon. Gentleman points to the Birmingham Six as an example. Every country has examples of miscarriages of justices. That is not a reason not to prosecute. It is a reason to prosecute carefully. Either we accept that the other countries are worthy of respect in this case, or we do not.
	Those hon. Members who say that we should not respect the other countries' courts are often the hon. Members who do not respect other aspects of the other countries in the European Union, who say that they cannot be trusted to follow the rules of the European Union, and who say that they wonder whether we should be members of the European Union at all, given that the others are so unreliable.

Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that many hon. Members may agree with the sentiments that he has expressed but will not be prepared to vote for a Bill that does not have what we consider adequate safeguards?

Nick Palmer: I accept that. I am not claiming that anyone who disagrees is a Europhobe. I am saying that there is a tendency here: that some hon. Members are opposed to the Bill because they instinctively mistrust a number of foreign jurisdictions; and that that reflects a wider mistrust of foreign communities in general. That is an area where the Government have made a difference compared with previous Governments. When we say that we are willing to engage with Europe, we mean that we are willing to discuss with our European partners what a reasonable joint basis is and to proceed on the basis of mutual trust. Sometimes it may go wrong. Sometimes—often, I believe—it will produce more justice than we have at the moment. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House. 7.38 pm

Boris Johnson: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer). I congratulate him on speaking for more than half an hour. I oppose the European extradition warrant because it is a bad law founded on a good principle that has been wildly misapplied by our masters in the European Union who have agreed the warrant. That is the principle, to which the Minister alluded, of mutual recognition.
	Fans and amateurs of the European Union, such as me and the hon. Member for Broxtowe, who spoke at such great length, know that the principle of mutual recognition has brought many benefits to the people of the European Community. The principle arose from a famous case—the Cassis de Dijon case—and I hope that hon. Members who are waiting to speak will forgive me for briefly reminding those who have forgotten about it.
	In Dijon, a vendor of Cassis de Dijon, a substance used to transform Kir into Kir Royale, had difficulties selling his product to Germany, and he went all the way to the European Court of Justice, which is the supreme judicial body on our continent for the European Union. It decided that what was good for Dijon should be good for Germany, and that there should be a principle of mutual recognition of standards.
	From that, of course, flowed all the benefits of the single market. For example, Labour Members could, if they so chose—I hope that, in due course, they will—take up alternative careers as dentists in Belgium or taxi drivers in Greece. That is the triumph of the single market, which was of course promulgated and pushed forward by great Europeans such as Lord Cockfield and Mrs. Thatcher.
	It must be said that that principle cannot be universally and successfully applied. Hon. Members who have travelled to the continent will know that, in spite of 30 years of EU membership and working away solidly at the principle of mutual recognition, it is not yet possible to plug in one's toaster in France—should one bring it from Britain—and nor is it possible to use a British video recorder. Another example of the failure of the principle of mutual recognition can be found in road safety. It would be unwise if the European Union were to apply the principle to driving on the left-hand side of the road. It would lead to many fatal accidents if Ministers were to turn up in France and try to drive on the right. The principle of mutual recognition cannot be excessively applied because it does not cohere with what happens in the real world.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman touches on a real point, which I should have thought was an advertisement for the principle of mutual recognition. He is right that we cannot have a European system of law that applies to the rule of the road, because some drive on the right and others on the left. However, surely we can have mutual recognition so that, when somebody is accused of dangerous driving and potentially killing someone in France, that penalty can be taken into consideration in Britain so that they are not liable to do the same thing here. Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that such mutual recognition protects our citizens, as well as those of the rest of the European Union.

Boris Johnson: The Minister is groping towards the essence of the problem, which is that mutual recognition can only go so far. It does not work in the sphere of road traffic, because trying to drive on the left-hand side of the road in France would prove catastrophic, and it does not work in the criminal justice system. It is eccentric, dangerous and profoundly undemocratic to apply that principle to this very delicate area of law. There is simply no reason to do it. The only possible outcome of abolishing the principle of dual criminality is the creation of a single legal regime that does not have the sanction and authority of this House. It is particularly worrying—

Nick Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it should be a defence for a Frenchman who drives on the right in Britain to say that in France, it would be legal to do so?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman's point is so frivolous as to not be worth answering. It is perfectly obvious that mutual recognition is not applicable in the sphere of driving or in the criminal justice system. As he himself said, very different approaches to the law exist. It is particularly worrying that British citizens could face immediate and unchallengeable extradition for offences that may carry as little as 12 months' imprisonment in the extraditing country.
	The problem is not just that the list of 32 offences is inchoate and vague but that this House has had no say in the drawing up of the laws that fall under those categories. As has been said repeatedly, it is therefore possible for a British citizen to be extradited for conduct that has not been criminalised in this country. Worst of all, it is particularly intolerable that this House will have no control over any future legislation that may fall under any of these vague categories, and which may be drawn up by any member state in any contracting country.
	I shall not delay the House with examples of cases where our law does not criminalise activities illegal in other countries. The point about the plane spotters has already been well made. I thought it generous of the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety to concede in advance that, under this EU extradition warrant, those people would have been sent back to Greece immediately, had they been in Britain. That rather kicked the legs out from under his position, and it infused the contributions of most Labour Back Benchers, with the exception of the hon. Member for Broxtowe. The point about xenophobia has also already been well made.

Bob Ainsworth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Boris Johnson: I give way with pleasure to the Minister. Perhaps he is going to retract what the previous Minister said.

Bob Ainsworth: I am not going to retract what my right hon. Friend said. First, the Greek plane spotters case was not an extradition case, but had it been so, potentially it would be extraditable now. The charge was espionage, and no ability exists to question on a prima facie basis whether or not such an extradition would be carried out. The European arrest warrant would not materially change that situation. Those people could be extradited now, under law passed by the hon. Gentleman's own Government some 10 years ago.

Boris Johnson: I understand the position, and I am grateful to the Minister for trying to save his right hon. Friend from the very difficult position in which he put the Government. However, I think that he will find that, under the current dispensation, it remains at least within the power of the Home Secretary to vary such a decision by not extraditing on the spur of the moment—as this EU extradition warrant envisages—a bunch of poor tourists who fall foul of the Greek authorities.
	I shall not labour the point, but I want to make one other that occurred to me during the debate. It relates to a particular category of difficulty that many Members will have noticed in their postbags: the different approaches in EU countries to the law of custody of children. I can well imagine that Germany, for instance, might take a very different view of what constitutes illegal restraint—as it is described in the 32 new categories—from that taken by our courts. British mothers of children with a German father who brought those children to England might well fall foul of the German courts, and could be extradited to Germany for something that is not a crime in this country. I mention that as merely one example of the dangers inherent in the abolition of the principle of dual criminality, and of the establishment of mutual recognition of criminal law.
	What is the benefit of the proposed change? The Government have proposed only one serious benefit: once in a blue moon, it might be possible to snare a tax avoider who absconded to Luxembourg. More or less, that was the only good argument that I heard. That is a pitiful and petty objective. If that is all that we hope to achieve by giving away the legal certainty of people in this country, that is a shameful thing. It is wrong to do away with the principle that the criminal laws by which people in this country can be held to account should at least be consistent with the laws passed by the Parliament of this country. If Ministers want a law against xenophobia, they are perfectly entitled to draw one up and bring it to Parliament to see whether we will pass it but that cannot happen without the approval of Parliament.
	I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Broxtowe about paedophilia, although I thought that he elided his example. Consenting sexual relations in Spain became, in his mind, paedophilia. If the Spanish want to change the law on consenting sexual relations and to raise the age of consent, that is a matter for them and not for this House.

Nick Palmer: In contrast to my previous intervention, I want to make a serious point. It seems to me that it is a matter of serious concern in Britain if visitors from another country believe that they can safely have sexual relations with children aged 12 because it is legal in their country. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would believe that to be of interest not only to the Spanish Parliament.

Boris Johnson: If the hon. Gentleman accurately represents the position in Spain—I have no independent knowledge of it and should be grateful for elucidation afterwards—he has a fair point. In that respect, what takes place in Spain is clearly a matter of interest to us. However, to do away with the legal certainty of people in this country that they will be governed exclusively by the laws of this country, passed in this House, for the sake of the elusive prize of capturing one so-called paedophile or someone who has sexual relations with a person aged 12 and over is, I think, very wrong.
	It is plain what needs to be done. We need to insist on the principle of dual criminality or to do as the Home Affairs Committee has suggested and Members on both sides of the House have proposed: we should leave it to the power of the district judge. If he decides that dual criminality does not apply in a particular case, he will give the case to the Home Secretary to decide whether the extradition may go ahead. That at least would provide the procedure with the fig leaf of democratic accountability—anything else would undermine confidence in justice and in our democratic system.

Gareth Thomas: This has been an interesting debate. Opposition and Labour Members have ventilated some important principles and issues. However, although Conservative Front Benchers have a principled objection to part 1, one cannot help feeling that much of the heat generated by the Opposition is informed by plain anti-Europeanism or Euroscepticism. Having said that, I welcome the Bill but have reservations about its practicalities. I was impressed by the report of the Home Affairs Committee and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).
	I agree with the Government that reform of the law of extradition is necessary and overdue. Current procedures are too slow and expensive, and ineffective in dealing with the growing phenomenon of organised crime that knows no international boundaries. The current system does a disservice to many victims. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety that, when it takes six or seven years to conclude extradition proceedings and the process can be punctuated by no fewer than seven different forms of appeal, something is clearly wrong. That surely is an illustration of the axiom that justice delayed is justice denied.
	There is something of a tension as far as the objectives behind the legislation are concerned. One can accept that there is increasing co-operation between the member states of the European Union. We know that the Government have subscribed to the aim of establishing an area of freedom, security and justice. That is an extension of the single market, and that requires mutual recognition, as the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) said so eloquently and humorously. However, it is not always possible to achieve mutual recognition. Business in this country—particularly the professions—finds it frustrating that our European friends do not recognise our professional qualifications and often do not give the reciprocity necessary to establish a single market. However, there is a need for judicial co-operation if that single market is to be established in terms of recognising civil judgments and civil legal procedures.
	In criminal justice, if we are to create a European Union in which there is freedom of movement, security and justice for all our citizens, we need to trust our European Union partners. I speak as someone who is by no means a Euro-enthusiast when I say that I recognise that there needs to be greater judicial co-operation and an extension of trust by this country when dealing with extradition requests from other EU member states.
	If a Government are concerned, as this Government are, to expedite the long-winded and cumbersome extradition procedures, it is necessary for us not blithely to abandon caution but to extend a fair degree of trust to those mature democracies that we feel have a system of justice that can more or less be trusted. That is why I think that the Bill's structure, in so far as it draws a distinction between category 1 and 2 countries, is justified. We know that the so-called fast-track procedure involving the European arrest warrant will apply to category 1 countries.
	The removal of protections that hitherto existed, however, is quite a draconian step. If countries can avail themselves of the fast-track procedure, there needs to be a reasonable degree of parliamentary scrutiny of which countries should be included in category 1. Although I welcome the Bill as a whole, I agree that the Home Affairs Committee recommendation on that point is particularly compelling. The Committee concluded that it was wrong for the Government to be able to add non-EU countries to category 1, thus enabling them to benefit from fast-track procedures, without there being appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Minister confirm whether the measure will leave it open for the Government, as a discretionary matter and without adequate scrutiny from the House, to add other countries to category 1?
	It is important to stress that if trust between countries is to be the basis for extending a fast-track approach to category 1 offences, Parliament should have the right to test the Government's view that it is right to extend that privilege to other countries. Trust is a byword, however; if we are to have good and practical relations with our European neighbours, there must be an expedited procedure.
	I have some support for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South about dual criminality. Hon. Members will recall that he argued for the necessity of some political process to ensure that a district judge could express a view that dual criminality did not exist—in other words, that the offence that was the subject of the warrant might exist in the country where the warrant was issued but did not exist in the UK.
	As I understood my hon. Friend's argument, he envisaged a situation in which a district judge could make a declaration that dual criminality did not exist. In those circumstances, the Home Secretary—accountable to Parliament as he is—could make a separate decision on whether extradition was appropriate. In that sense, parliamentary scrutiny would be brought to bear on the case and that would give an important safeguard.
	However, there is a false element in that argument. I tend to the view that if we are serious about trusting countries admitted to category 1 status, we have to accept that they are a job lot—to put it crudely. Having accepted the principle that there should be fast-track procedures for mature democracies, which have robust judicial systems that provide safeguards for individuals and which adhere to the European convention on human rights, we cannot gainsay that and embark on a minute assessment of their criminal law systems.
	One has thus to accept the logic of the Government's position—although hon. Members may be right to express some reservations about how it would work in practice. There is room for abuse. The provisions could be a blank cheque. What may be appropriate at present may not be in years to come. We cannot guarantee that laws passed by our EU partners will meet our expectations as regards conformity with human rights standards in the future.
	The provisions may give rise to some tension. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's broad response to my points. If one is to take the route proposed in the measure, one cannot complicate matters by creating a situation that brings about the very mischief of delay and expense that the Bill is intended to address.
	Hon. Members who suggest that there are dangers in doing away with dual criminality may be overstating the case. As I understand it, English common law never required that there should be an exact correspondence between offences in the country to which extradition was required and those that could be heard before courts in England and Wales. English common law applies to Wales and some Labour Members who represent Welsh constituencies hope that primary legislative powers for Wales will remain in this place.
	Extradition treaties between sovereign countries have been in existence since the time of the nation states of Greece and Sparta, as I am reminded by the learned author Michael Forde in his recent publication on extradition law. He makes the point that extradition is an extension of diplomacy because if nations are to have good relations with each another, they need to show respect for and trust of their respective judicial systems.
	Michael Forde states:
	XUndoubtedly there was some form of extradition in ancient Greece and also between the Italian city states. During the 18th century France had extradition arrangements with Spain, with Portugal and with Wurtemburg."
	He notes that the XJay" treaty of 1794, which marked the end of hostilities between the United States and Great Britain, made provision for extradition between Holland, the United States and Great Britain.
	We have moved away from the use of extradition treaties to a more logical approach. To return to what I regard as the overstatement of Opposition Members' case on dual criminality, I refer to clause 10, which deals with the initial stage of the extradition hearing. It contains an important safeguard on which the Minister might care to comment. The clause states:
	XThis section applies if a person in respect of whom a Part 1 warrant"—
	in other words, a fast-track procedure—
	Xis issued appears or is brought before the appropriate judge for the extradition hearing . . . The judge must decide whether the offence specified in the Part 1 warrant is an extradition offence."
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the clause imports an element of judicial discretion in interpreting the European arrest warrant. One accepts that the 32 categories of offence in the EU framework are generic and vague in certain respects, but there is a safeguard none the less. The judge is required to assess whether the warrant includes something that is an extradition offence.
	There are some good points in the measure, but one can understand the reservations. We are taking our neighbours on trust and we are doing away with a legal and political tradition, but life moves on. Organised crime moves on. Society moves on. People are more mobile and we have to produce legislation that is consistent with our era. I believe that the Bill meets that requirement.
	I shall refer to another point made by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, and there is something very compelling in it. It relates to what I and perhaps other hon. Members would regard as the Government's gold plating of that part of the EU framework decision that deals with dual criminality. To refresh hon. Members' memories, the European arrest warrant refers to 32 offences that do not require criminality in the country that seeks extradition to correspond with that in the country to which the warrant refers.
	Page 11 if the Home Affairs Committee report states:
	XAs discussed in paragraph 16 above, article 2.2 of the framework decision provides that surrender of a suspect under a European Arrest Warrant will not be subject to the dual criminality requirement where the offence for which extradition is sought falls into the list of 32 offences",
	to which copious reference has been made,
	Xand"—
	this is an additional requirement—
	Xcarries a maximum penalty of at least three years' imprisonment in the issuing state."

Bob Ainsworth: May I point out to my hon. Friend that this is not a case of gold plating? Although the requirement for dual criminality has been removed from offences on the generic list, a directly comparable offence will be found in the two jurisdictions in the overwhelming majority of such cases. By ending the requirement for dual criminality, we will prevent endless legal argument about whether there is an exact replica of the alleged criminality in another state. So to move from one year to three years would represent a considerable weakening of our current, long-standing extradition arrangements with our European partners.

Gareth Thomas: I understand what the Minister says, perhaps as well as his point about the inherent delay in the present system, where a nit-picking analysis of what is and what is not a criminal offence in one country or another can take place. However, with the greatest respect, my hon. Friend has not dealt with the fact that the Government have subscribed to the framework document, which refers to a three-year imprisonment threshold for the European arrest warrant to bite. Why do the Government therefore feel it necessary to go over and beyond that protection? The Home Affairs Committee was correct to say that that decision seemed somewhat extraordinary.

Bob Ainsworth: The simple reason is that our current extradition law refers to 12 months, not three years, so we cannot possibly be gold plating the framework decision. That decision is drafted to encompass only far more serious crimes than our current, long-standing extradition arrangements carry.

Gareth Thomas: With the greatest respect, our current extradition law does not operate in the context of an all-embracing fast-track system, which will apply to category 1 offences. To create that sort of category is a drastic, but necessary step, although it should be counterbalanced by certain protections.

John Burnett: Will the hon. Gentleman lead us on to the further protections that we may lose? Will he say a few words about speciality?

Gareth Thomas: I may get on to that subject, but I repeat that the Government should look again at lowering the threshold from three years to 12 months. I accept the Minister's comment that, as a matter of common sense, we have conventionally operated a 12-month limit because we think that offences that carry a sentence of no less than 12 months are probably sufficiently serious to justify the extradition process. However, we shall operate in different territory if the Bill becomes law and, with respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and others make a strong point when they say that, if we are to go down the route of the European framework, we should at least apply the protections that are in it and adhere to the three-year threshold.

David Cameron: rose—

Gareth Thomas: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

David Cameron: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had finished.

Gareth Thomas: I was about to deal with the question of scrutiny as regards the categories of country that can take advantage of the fast-track procedure. Again, I ask the Minister to refer specifically to that issue because it leads on from my reservations. Yes, the new systems are required, but there must countervailing checks and balances. There is a case for Parliament having an opportunity to debate whether countries should be added to that list.
	I shall conclude because other hon. Members may be anxious to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Bill—it is a recognition of changing times and realities—but it is capable of being improved, and I earnestly ask the Government to consider the points that I have made with a view to providing some countervailing checks and balances.

Desmond Swayne: One of the great advantages of being called relatively low down the batting order is that many of the important points have already been made and one therefore has the luxury of being brief. I am sure that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) excuses himself from not having made use of that luxury on the grounds that he was not present for the opening speeches, but I am afraid that that excuse is not available to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas). How he managed to work the Spartans into this debate is a matter of great ingenuity. To be fair to him, his points were well made, although he took rather long in getting round to them.
	My constituency is not inundated, as are some hon. Members' constituencies, by the problem of asylum seekers and refugees. In that respect, my constituency is well favoured, but asylum seekers have come to my surgeries—I can think of a couple of cases in the past year—in an attempt to enlist my support for their case. I openly admit that I have sat there with a certain amount of preconceived prejudice, and I have judged the implausibility of the case that is put before me. It is right and proper, therefore, that my prejudice should have nothing to do with the case, which will be properly determined by a tribunal that will examine the prima facie case.
	What strikes me as extraordinary is that, while we are labouring under the huge number of asylum seekers and the system that attempts to be fair to them and give them a fair hearing, the Government are introducing a measure that will remove the proper procedures and throw people out of this kingdom to be dealt with by courts elsewhere. That is absolutely grotesque.

Mike Gapes: I fail to see the connection between asylum seekers and people being extradited for crimes. Is the hon. Gentleman implying that asylum seekers are somehow responsible for crimes?

Desmond Swayne: No, I was merely juxtaposing that with what I regard as the ridiculous nature of this measure. Clearly, I made a mistake in giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
	Labour Members—and one Opposition Member—have displayed squeamishness throughout this debate, which was clearly unjustified. In expressing their support for this measure, they have said that it must not be applied wherever capital punishment might be the consequence of extradition. They are not being just to the arguments. When the Minister replied to my question about the case of the tourists who were plane spotting in Greece, he said that we cannot have citizens of our country travelling the world, breaking laws, and coming back here expecting to get away with impunity. Sauce for the goose, however, is sauce for the gander. If people are prepared to go to other parts of the world and break the law, surely they should have some mind of the penalty for those crimes. In trying to draw a distinction in respect of countries where capital punishment exists, hon. Members undermine the whole argument for the general principle that they have espoused.
	The Minister went further in his reply and said that we cannot have people from this country going across Europe and breaking the law. He exhibited precisely the same prejudice to which I admitted when listening to what I considered to be the implausible arguments of an asylum seeker explaining his case. One cannot make the presumption that people have gone abroad and broken the law—a proper procedure exists for courts in this country to decide whether the law has been broken. This measure attempts to do away with that, or to go further in doing away with it than we have already gone.
	I now come to the heart of this abominable Bill.

Bob Ainsworth: If a British driver were found guilty of dangerous driving in France, would that not be a matter of concern for people in this country? The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that it is not a matter of concern, that we should concern ourselves only with dangerous driving that occurs in this country, and that whatever occurs abroad is nothing to do with us.

Desmond Swayne: The hon. Gentleman mistakes me, and it is my fault. I was speaking of the reply of the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety to my intervention. As the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, however, I accept entirely that if there is a case to answer for a crime that is also a crime in this country, it is proper that extradition should take place. What I reject utterly is the proposal that we should extradite for crimes that do not exist in this country—clearly, the crime of dangerous driving does exist in this country, and I would have absolutely no objection to such an extradition when a prima facie case was made.
	I return to the rotten heart of this Bill. The reality is that we are elected to this legislature to determine the laws of this country—what constitutes criminal behaviour, and for what offences our constituents should be sent to prison or extradited. The Bill takes that decision from this legislature and hands it to the Council of Ministers, who will decide for what crimes people will be extradited from this country.

Angus Robertson: I would like to raise a point that has not reared its head in the debate so far. In relation to decisions being made in the Council of Ministers, has the hon. Gentleman considered the fact that the Scottish Minister for Justice, a Liberal Democrat, has managed to miss 15 of the last 19 Council of Ministers meetings? What kind of guarantee is that in terms of the guarantees of Scots law?

Desmond Swayne: I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing would surprise me about the indolence and incompetence of such a Minister, particularly one from that party.
	Matters that are properly for this House to decide are being taken from it and given to somebody else. No self-respecting legislature or free Parliament should vote for such a measure. 8.26 pm

Harry Cohen: I am generally supportive of this Bill, but it needs careful and close scrutiny, which I hope will happen in Committee. I hope that the Government will have an open mind to some of the changes that are proposed, and will be prepared to accept some of them.
	When Bills that have connections with other countries come before the House, the security services often get involved, and they seem to have too much influence in comparison to the civil liberties lobby. I know that what they have to say must be taken seriously, but a balance needs to be struck between what the security services think are in their interests—or what Foreign Office civil servants think are in their interests—and the civil liberties lobby. We cannot ride roughshod over civil liberties.
	On that subject, I agree with the principle outlined by the Minister that we would want crimes committed in this country by foreigners to be dealt with by our courts, so it is reasonable for crimes committed by Britons in foreign countries to be dealt with by those countries' courts. A glaring loophole exists at the moment, however, in relation to diplomatic immunity cases—the Foreign Office civil servants are still protecting their own. Foreign diplomats are not subject to the law if they commit crimes in this country, and some very serious crimes have been committed by foreign diplomats in this country and by British diplomats abroad. They have claimed diplomatic immunity, which is an anachronism. They should not be allowed that, and, if necessary, extradition should be applied to them. Given the principle that Ministers have outlined, I ask them to consider that aspect anew, and to persuade other countries, too, to rethink their approach in that respect.
	I support the Bill's underlying principle of greater international judicial co-operation. A few years ago, when I was on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly's economic committee, I led a delegation of parliamentarians from Europe and the United States to Interpol. There must be greater police and judicial co-operation to tackle organised crime. Police chiefs at Interpol told us that organised criminals deliberately used the boundaries between countries, the different rules and laws and even the nuances in the laws to get away with crime and to evade justice. Therefore, the principle of a European arrest warrant is okay. The shadow Home Secretary's criticism of it was unjustified.
	The shadow Home Secretary tried to compare the position here with that in the United States. We are not a state of the United States; we are a member of the European Union. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to seek better arrangements with the European Union.

Nick Hawkins: Even if the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the extremely detailed arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), will he not consider the similar arguments advanced in the incredibly hostile report produced by the Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee, which is led by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). If the hon. Gentleman will not listen to my right hon. Friend, surely he should listen to a Labour-dominated Committee that has considered the Bill in great detail. The hon. Gentleman also said that we should not ride roughshod over civil liberties, but does he not accept that Liberty, which is the main champion of civil liberties, shares all our criticisms of the proposals?

Harry Cohen: I will mention Liberty and other aspects of the Bill. I pay tribute to the Home Affairs Committee and its report. It raised very important issues. My speech will contain criticisms of the Bill and that is why I began by saying that I want it to be closely scrutinised in Committee and that I hope the Government will have an open mind about changes to it. However, I have been outlining the fundamental principles behind the Bill and my view that they are worthy and worthwhile.
	My former pair, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), made an impressive speech, and I agree with certain aspects of it. He made a good point about the problems of facing a trial in a court where a different language is used. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that point. Perhaps more support should be offered to someone in those circumstances in a foreign court.
	However, the hon. Gentleman made a couple of points that left me flabbergasted. In particular, he seemed to suggest that criminals could almost pick and choose the country to hide in. If every country adopted the approach that he and those on the Opposition Front Bench have taken, the criminal could go to the country that afforded him the best protection for the crime that he had committed. That runs contrary to the aim of having a general European arrest warrant that closes the loopholes that the Interpol chiefs mentioned in their comments to my delegation.

Gareth Thomas: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to holiday in Spain recently? I am unaware of the current position there. As he will recall, an area known as the Xcosta del crime" was of considerable concern to this country. Like me, would he be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that phenomenon?

Harry Cohen: Indeed, I would. The Xcosta del crime" did not do this country any favours abroad. I support better arrangements with Spain and other countries so that there is a fair extradition process.
	One of the themes in the Queen's Speech was that there should be justice for the victims of serious crimes and their families. It is right that that principle should apply to victims abroad and not necessarily just to Britons. We should prevent people from evading and delaying justice by using their UK citizenship as a cover for that purpose. People do not have the right to commit crime abroad and then come back to hide in this country.
	I do not support the approach that was described as a form of judicial imperialism. The law must apply both to those countries that extradite criminals to us and to this country when we extradite criminals abroad. The process must be fair and equal.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman's comment on judicial imperialism has formulated a thought in my mind. Will the Bill apply to British overseas territories or Crown territories, or is similar legislation expected?

Harry Cohen: I am not an expert on that and leave it to the Minister to respond. I think the Bill should apply to British overseas territories. I am not unsympathetic to the idea that people should stand trial in the country in which they committed the crime, although the language consideration is relevant.
	Delays of six years have been mentioned before a decision is reached. That is too long and needs to be reduced.
	Two aspects of the Conservatives' approach worry me. The first relates to the death penalty. In an article on 8 October, the leader of the Conservative party described Labour's plans not to extradite people to countries where they may face the death penalty as Xridiculous and mad", but it is not ridiculous and mad at all. The right to life is a basic human right; it is not for the state to take it away. People may be innocent or political opponents of a state. The death sentence is invariably disproportionate to the crime committed. People with mental health difficulties might be executed, as we have seen in the United States. In the period between commission of the offence and the death sentence being carried out, someone may become a changed person. We need to encourage the United States, Russia, China, Iran and others to abolish the death penalty. It is important that we never extradite anyone to a country that might pass the death sentence. The Conservatives are playing fast and loose by not making their position clear.
	My second concern about the Conservatives' approach relates to xenophobia. Some hon. Members said that UK law does not cover xenophobia, and the Conservatives have used that as a reason to oppose extradition. Let us consider the appalling genocide in Rwanda. It was well known that that was incited in many ways, including in the country's media. The mass slaughter that followed was incited for xenophobic reasons. A person who incited such violence could come to this country without the Government's knowledge and be allowed to stay. Indeed, that has happened. Provided that all the rules come into play, including the policy of no death sentence, it would be proper for the Government to extradite someone who incited such murder—it was a holocaust, really—in order that they may face justice. It would not be unreasonable in those circumstances for xenophobia to be taken into account or at least considered when an extradition request is made.
	I have some concerns and criticisms. I want an assurance that mental and physical health will be taken into account before extradition is granted. If it is not, that itself could be an oppressive punishment, or could add to such a punishment.
	Liberty makes three good points. One is that British citizens could be extradited for offences that are not crimes in the United Kingdom. The test should be that where there is no offence in this country when set against what is being requested for extradition by another country, extradition should not take place. However, where there is a similar offence—what I would describe as nuances in different laws—that should be reason enough for the extradition process to be allowed. I do not know exactly how that would be worked out, but I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to adopt that approach in such cases.
	Secondly, Liberty goes on to say that the process should apply only to serious offences to guard against thousands of individuals being sent abroad for minor or trivial offences. I agree. The threshold for the extradition procedure is too low. Twelve months has been mentioned, and the Minister referred to three years, but even three years is too low. We do not want the procedure to apply to many thousands of people, either way. It should apply only to the most serious crimes.
	Thirdly, Liberty says that the list of offences that can give rise to extradition is too vague and too wide, and includes unacceptably ambiguous offences such as computer-related crime. That is a good point. The list should be much more specific. Computers are still relatively new, as are the applications for using them. Those who use computers may engage in some form of criminality, and may even know that they are doing so, but that should not mean that the extradition process will automatically kick in. The Government should be much more specific.
	There have been some cases of people hacking into the Pentagon computer. I do not know how serious the breaches were, but the United States obviously regarded them as serious. If they could have started world war three, they were certainly serious, but they may not have been so serious as to warrant people being extradited to the United States, perhaps to suffer a harsh punishment. Such matters could have been dealt with easily in the United Kingdom, and that should be considered.
	There are three other points to be made. —[Interruption.] I am making genuine points; I am not waffling. If I am upsetting Opposition Members, I shall make them quickly. I thought that they would like my points because I am making criticisms. First, the United States has denied civil liberties at Guantanamo bay. Military law applies there and defendants are not allowed an independent defence. The United States is detaining people without trial and is ignoring the Geneva convention. The shadow Home Secretary praised the US and said that we should have an agreement with it. However, I bet that he would not support sending someone back to a country just to face military action—that is what we would be doing by extraditing people to Guantanomo bay. We should not do so—the United States is out of line with international standards on civil liberties. It is not right that people should be extradited to a country if it imposes military law on them and does not comply with the Geneva convention.
	Secondly, the Government have produced a Green Paper on mercenaries and legislation will be introduced in future—they may even be legitimised. Mercenaries carry out killings and it would be unreasonable to grant an exception in extradition law so that they can do so without facing extradition or any justice at all. They may start or be involved in a war or civil war against the UK's proclaimed policy, and should not be allowed special concessions. We will see how the legislation turns out after the consultation, but it must be linked to existing extradition measures.
	Finally, the Secretary of State's involvement in political cases is excessive. He should intervene less and the judiciary should be involved more—we should examine those cases under a proper judicial process. It is wrong for political considerations to drive extradition. I note that the exception for political offences, which provides a defence of political motivation, is to be abolished. However, that defence is still needed. People may commit a criminal act. For example, some of those who fought against apartheid in South Africa committed criminal offences, and some of the people resisting the Zimbabwean regime now may be committing criminal offences. However, they probably had, or have, a political motive and reasons that we would otherwise support for doing so. The defence is still needed, although I accept that there must be a balance between consideration of the criminal act and someone's political motivation. I do not favour getting rid of the political offence exception altogether.
	I hope that the Government will consider those points carefully in Committee and at later stages in the Bill's consideration. I hope that they will take some of my criticisms on board and amend the Bill accordingly.

Patrick Mercer: I am pleased to be called to speak, and am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), who made his points clearly, if lengthily.
	I was rather disappointed by the comments of the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas), who said that Conservative Members spoke purely and simply from a visceral dislike of anything European. That is a grave disservice to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), both of whose speeches were extremely cleverly formulated and, I like to think, were free of the tedious prejudice which, I admit, was often expressed by my party in the past.

Gareth Thomas: I was trying to make the point that some basic principles have come across clearly. Labour Members could not help but think that underpinning those principles was a fair amount of Euroscepticism which may reflect arguments going on in the Conservative party. That is all that I said.

Patrick Mercer: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I commend those two speeches in particular as being completely free of that negative influence.
	I shall be as brief as I can in speaking about the background to the Bill. I wholly understand that something needs to be done about extradition. I largely support every part of the Bill, except part 1. If I contradict myself, I hope that the Minister will bear with me. Although I understand that the conditions that prevail after 11 September make the simplification of extradition necessary, I believe that tinkering with the current extradition rules is dangerous and liable to infringe freedom, and may aid and abet terrorists. I shall try to explain.
	I do not know how familiar the House is with the French press. For several years, well before 11 September, the term XLondonistan" had been used frequently. What does it mean? The French particularly view London as the centre for international terrorism, with British laws allowing terrorists to prosper and act freely, and with the British police being singularly ineffective against them. I wholly rebut that. None the less, that opinion is gathering steam abroad.
	Obviously, it was America that was attacked on 11 September, but Germany and France particularly have suffered at the hands of terrorists. There is certainly a head of steam building up in European nations that have been attacked, albeit in a fairly minor way, which may, once further terrorist attacks occur—and they will—end up endangering the due process of justice. I shall explain in a little more detail.
	The impact of terrorism has been keenly felt by America. That country was not used to terrorism in any shape or form before 11 September, at least not on home territory. The reaction of America to 11 September was measured, partly owing to the influence exerted by this country, because of our experience of terrorism and our laws which have dealt effectively with terrorism in the past. None the less, I ask right hon. and hon. Members to reflect on the fact that US allegations against a UK resident accused of involvement in a serious terrorist crime turned out to concern a minor misdemeanour once it was scrutinised. I suggest that terrorist violence turns the mind and can cant the judgment.
	May I point out what has happened in Australia recently? It is probably fair to say that Australia was not expecting to be attacked as it was in Bali. To quote one or two comments from the Australian press, Australia is now ready for a much more hairy-chested foreign policy. That means that the judgment of countries such as Australia is likely to be skewed, and countries in Europe are likely to be subject to the same pressures.
	If we take away the existing restrictions and protection, we probably end up doing the terrorists' job for them. Having fought terrorism for the best part of 25 years, I can say that it was always an article of faith that security forces acted with complete moral and legal rectitude in everything that they did. Britain has experience of terrorism and the maturity in its laws to deal with it. I am concerned that any alterations to the extradition laws may endanger that.
	Furthermore, we have heard in recent weeks arguments from Labour Members about the risk of scaring the pants off the population by warning people about likely terrorist attacks. They have argued, cogently in some respects, that that does the terrorists' job for them. Any changes to our extradition laws will partially assist the terrorist in achieving his aims of bringing about a change in the law and a wholly different climate in which law-abiding nations work, and of dissolving the moral superiority with which so-called civilised nations deal with the problem.
	I could deal in detail with one or two of the points that have been made, but frankly, they have been made with much greater clarity than I could ever make them. I also realise that time is short, so I shall conclude my remarks. I believe that part 2 will do the job, but part 1 infringes everything that this country's courts and law have stood for over the years. While I fully take the point made by hon. Members on both sides of the House and agree that times and circumstances are changing, I suggest to the Minister that now is the time for this country, which understands the problems of violence, terrorism and subornation of the legal process, to stand firm in what it believes, to continue to provide protection to people, and to stand, alone if necessary, but 100 per cent. behind the defence of the individual. Only by being 100 per cent. above corruption and completely correct can we hope to prove to our enemies that our cause is correct.

Mike Gapes: The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) made a point that was partly correct when he spoke about London and international terrorist organisations. The circumstances that he described may have existed in the past, but since we introduced the Terrorism Act 2000 and the post-11 September legislation, the situation has changed considerably.

Patrick Mercer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mike Gapes: I am short of time and I should like to build my argument.
	I believe that the Bill is not only about terrorism, but about a range of issues of which terrorism is one. As the Minister said in introducing the Bill, current legislation is more than a century out of date. The measures introduced 12 or 13 years ago were consolidation measures. The reality is that current legislation dates from the Victorian and imperial age. Let us think back to that time. There were very few states in the world, a large swathe of which was coloured red.

David Cameron: Pink.

Mike Gapes: Indeed. The reality of the situation today is that we have about 200 nation states, the United Nations, the International Labour Organisation and the World Trade Organisation, and a huge number of international covenants and treaties dealing with genocide, crimes against humanity, laws of war and many of the issues that are currently considered when we discuss the workings of the International Criminal Court. In those circumstances, it is absurd for extradition legislation to be based on a pre-modern age—the Victorian age and the age of empire. For those reasons, significant modernisation is well overdue.
	There are also other reasons; for example, the current system does not work and allows the wealthy criminals and the criminal lawyers to benefit from their expenditure to avoid justice. I use the phrase Xcriminal lawyers" advisedly. Some people in the legal profession do well out of representing international criminals, drug dealers and people who are engaged in crimes in one country, live in another and have offshore assets in some bank account that is hard to get at.
	We live in an age when people use the internet to commit crimes. They perpetrate sophisticated fraud on gullible and/or innocent people. Yet the international policing organisations are often unable to track them down. We have heard the debates about paedophilia, and we know that racist, Nazi groups use the internet. We also know that Nazi groups who operate in Germany are based in Denmark because they can easily get across to Schleswig-Holstein and smuggle in literature. Current Danish law does not allow them to be picked up or prosecuted because Denmark has an absolutist, free-speech approach, which some Conservative Members favour.
	It is fortunate that this country has laws against incitement to racial hatred. We have the Public Order Act 1986, and other legislation, which is not enforced strictly enough against organisations that peddle race hate, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. I should like us, like some other European countries, to have a law relating to holocaust denial. Britain should be alleged to be a sanctuary for neither terrorists nor racists and extremists.
	Let me give a specific example. For many years, the people who carried out the bombing in Bologna in the 1980s lived in Brighton, and nothing was done about it. They were linked with far-right groups such as the League of St. George, and involved in fascist training camps, yet they lived in Brighton without anything being done about it. That is outrageous. I hope that a common European arrest warrant and provisions for a Government to ask for extradition would lead to a solution to such a problem.
	We have experienced problems over the years that relate to Northern Ireland; for example, we had problems with the Irish Republic. I believe that they have been resolved since the Belfast agreement. Nevertheless, the Irish courts often refused to extradite. We experienced similar problems with the United States. For example, IRA fundraisers, people who were wanted for crimes, and even people who had escaped from prison could live in the USA because the courts would not extradite them to this country.
	The Bill may not be a perfect solution, but it highlights a genuine problem that must be tackled. The way in which Conservative Members and Liberal Democrat Members in the House of Lords deal with the Bill when it emerges from this House will be interesting. The past two or three years have shown that the Conservative-Liberal alliance in the House of Lords can defeat the Labour Government, with their democratic majority, whenever it chooses. Labour has only 26 per cent. of the peers in the upper House. The Liberals and the Conservatives have ganged up on several Home Office measures in recent years. That presents more of a challenge to the Liberals than the Conservatives, because I expect the latter to use their normal approach in the House of Lords. However, the Liberals have to reconcile their pro-European stance with their libertarianism. Perhaps they will have a problem in deciding which side to choose; maybe they will sit on the fence.

Nick Hawkins: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that many of his own party's supporters in the upper House have been voting with the Conservatives and the Liberals to take out the more outrageous parts of his Government's legislation?

Mike Gapes: No; what I recognise is that many people in the legal profession who have made their living as QCs over many years have a view of the realities of the world different from that of my constituents and those who suffer from the effects of drug dealers, paedophiles and all the others who engage in international criminal activity. It is time for the voice of the ordinary people who suffer from the effects of international criminality to be heard.
	Let us take another example. In east London—and other parts of the city—at this moment, international gangs of criminals are operating prostitution and drug rackets. We need effective measures to deal with them. Such people often flee this country to escape justice. As we enlarge the European Union and get better international co-operation, we must ensure that the new member states—as well as the applicant states and those that aspire to become part of the European Union, perhaps in 10 or 15 years—will get their house in order, and use our support and the support of others to do so. For example, British drug enforcement officers and police officers are working in countries such as Romania and Bulgaria today. Similarly, we are doing good work in Kosovo.
	We must work together with our European Union partners, and that will involve our having the ability to extradite criminals from those countries. I was in Pristina last year, where I saw hundreds of motor vehicles with German, Austrian and Italian registration plates. They had been stolen and driven across into Kosovo. Those activities do not happen by accident; they are carried out by organised gangs. We then hear stories of people in our constituencies inadvertently buying vehicles that have been stolen in some other European country and re-badged. We must get to grips with these problems, and the way to do that is through international co-operation. We talk about international law, and about the United Nations, but this is really all about getting rid of our petty, narrow-minded belief that, because we are British, we somehow have the best legal system in the world, despite the fact that it has not delivered justice to many people for many years. Instead, it has delivered fat fees to lawyers and given many of the victims of crime a sense of growing frustration.
	If we are to have effective law, we must ensure that our systems work quickly and get the right results. We do not want the wealthy—whether it is the van Hoogstratens, the Kenneth Noyes or the Jeffrey Archers of this world—to be able to escape justice because they have a large amount of money. Those three people have all been subjected to justice, and one of them was brought back from another country to be tried. We need a structure that will give the people on the street the confidence that the criminal justice system is doing its best for them. That will mean greater international co-operation in extraditing those who are living on the Xcosta del crime", and those who are exploiting the poor and weak in our own communities and taking their assets out of this country to some other part of the world. For that reason, I welcome the Bill and I hope that it gets through both Houses very soon.

David Cameron: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), who speaks with great passion. If I were a lawyer, I would not want to meet him on a dark night. My brother is a lawyer, so I will tell him to avoid Ilford when the hon. Gentleman is around.
	I serve on the Select Committee on Home Affairs and I am pleased to contribute to the debate. I think that we produced a good report in a very short time, although I would have liked it to go a little further. I will vote against the Bill because I disapprove of part 1, specifically the changes to dual criminality. It has for many years in this country been a safeguard that one cannot be extradited for something that is not an offence in this country, and that safeguard should not be lost. I did not sulk, but tried to help the Committee to suggest some safeguards, particularly our ingenious safeguard of involving the district judge and the Home Secretary in checking on the dual criminality element.
	The Government are going in entirely the wrong direction in respect of extradition and deportation. It has become close to impossible to deport or extradite those who might actually be a danger to this country—my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) made that point. That is why we have the stern detention powers in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001—vast powers to detain people without charge and without trial. One reason we have those powers is that it has been so difficult to extradite or deport those who pose a threat to the life of the nation.
	The reason for that is not the European convention on human rights itself, but the way in which it has been interpreted. Two cases are essential to understanding why that has happened. The first is the Soering case, which I raised with the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety. The judgment in that case was that an alleged murderer could not be extradited to Virginia because of the conditions on death row. In one step, the Soering case internationalised the European convention on human rights so that it applied not only to the countries that had signed it, but to America and other countries that had not signed it.
	The second case, which might be regarded as more serious, is the Chahal case, in which it was found that the Home Secretary was no longer able to balance the risk to national security of keeping someone here against the risk to the individual of being maltreated if he were to be deported or extradited. The judgment in that case stated:
	XThe prohibition provided by Article 3 is equally absolute in the expulsion cases . . . in these circumstances the activities of the individual in question however undesirable or dangerous cannot be a material consideration."—
	I repeat, Xhowever undesirable or dangerous". Imagine that, by some chance, Osama bin Laden arrived on the shores of this country. If the Americans tried to extradite him and refused to waive the right to impose the death penalty, the Chahal case, as I understand it, would make it impossible for us to extradite him from this country to the United States of America.
	We have a crisis in extradition and deportation, but what are the Government doing about it? They are not sorting out the problem of the jurisprudence under article 3 by re-acceding to the European convention on human rights and admitting some exceptions, as the French have done. Instead, through the Bill they are adopting the European arrest warrant, which means that UK citizens can be extradited for alleged offences that are not crimes in this country. It is extraordinary that, on the one hand, it has become harder to extradite people who have done something that is an offence in this country and could present a grave risk to the life of the nation, but, on the other hand, it will become easier to extradite someone who has done something that is not a crime in this country. That is why I say that the Government are going in the wrong direction.
	I find the European arrest warrant highly objectionable because of the problem of dual criminality. Hon. Members have spoken about that, but let us be clear about what it means. One of our constituents goes to Spain on holiday, commits an alleged offence, and returns home. All that is necessary for him or her to return is that the warrant is correctly filled out—in its report the Select Committee set out what a warrant looks like—and that a district judge in the UK sees the warrant and judges that the offence falls into one of the 32 categories. At no time is it asked whether the offence is a crime in this country.
	When one examines the matter, as the Home Affairs Committee did, one finds that the position is far worse than that. Nowhere in the Bill are the 32 categories of offences mentioned or written down, as the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) pointed out. The Committee asked the Home Office why the 32 categories were not listed in the Bill. Our report states:
	XThe Home Office responded that this was because article 2.2 allows for the list to be amended".
	Whole new classes of offence could be added to the European arrest warrant without proper parliamentary scrutiny.
	That is bad enough, but it gets worse: individual EU countries can decide which offences fall within the 32 categories. It is a case of—I quote from the report—
	Xas they are defined by the law of the issuing member state".
	Again, we asked the Home Office—this sounds a bit like XThat's Life", and XWe went back to the gas board . . . ". The Home Office said that it
	Xdoes not have detailed definitions of offences in the criminal justice systems of other EU member states".
	We simply do not know what we are letting our citizens—our constituents—in for.
	The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), whom I am pleased to see back in his place, made one good point in his long speech. It is difficult to list all the offences, and to ask all the other EU countries to list them all. The Select Committee recognised that, and it is a good reason for doing away with the dual criminality provisions altogether.
	The situation gets even worse: countries can add to the offences in the 32 categories. The Select Committee made an important point in paragraph 26, which states:
	XNot only does it appear to be largely unknown how the categories of offence will be defined by the current law of EU member states, there is no way of knowing how those offences may be defined by the future law of member states."
	They can add to the offences—

Bob Ainsworth: So can we.

David Cameron: Yes, but we do not know what we are letting our constituents in for.
	And it gets still worse. Countries joining the EU can automatically be designated category 1 countries. I have huge respect for countries in eastern Europe that have broken free of the communist yoke and I welcome them into the EU—I think that their joining is extremely important—but we must recognise that, if we pass the Bill, we will be taking other EU judicial systems on trust. That does not involve only the countries that are currently EU members, with their current laws, but all the countries that will join in future, with their future laws. It means taking an enormous step.
	Perhaps the biggest objection of all for those of us who care about the House and the way in which Parliament works is that we cannot amend the list of offences. We must either take the Bill whole, or reject it whole. We cannot take out the most general offences, such as xenophobia and computer-related crime; we must take the lot, or none at all. That is why I think it would be best to vote the Bill down. The Select Committee came up with an ingenious suggestion that I hope the Home Secretary will consider. It stated:
	Xin each case the district judge should look at the terms of the offence specified in the European Arrest Warrant and make a statement as to whether dual criminality applies. In cases where the alleged offence is not a crime in the UK, a separate decision about whether to extradite should then be made by the Home Secretary, who is responsible to Parliament."
	I know how few our numbers are on these Benches, and I know that we will probably be defeated in the Lobbies, but I hope that the Minister will consider that.
	What objection could there be? There are two possibilities. One is that this is, as I believe it to be, a modest additional safeguard that does not change the terms of the warrant but merely gives a new, additional responsibility to the district judge and the Home Secretary—a backstop power. The hon. Member for Broxtowe said that it was far more than that: he said, effectively, that it would run counter to the whole European arrest warrant, and could leave the Home Secretary in an invidious position because it would cause a conflict between him and the Council of Ministers in relation to their decision on that warrant. If someone came before him who had committed an offence that was not a crime in this country, according to the district judge, the Home Secretary would have to say, XI am sorry. You may spend time rotting in a Greek or Spanish jail. Weeks may pass before you are even charged with an offence that is not a crime in this country. But there is nothing I can do about it." If that is so, it demonstrates the inflexibility of the law that the Government have signed up to on our behalf—and if it is that inflexible, we should not adopt it.
	One of the things that we are supposed to do here is to defend the rights of people in this country: the people who send us here, our constituents, citizens of this country. We are meant to stand up against an over-mighty Executive, whether the over-mighty Executive are making decisions from Westminster or from Brussels, as is the case with this measure, particularly when our Government do not have the wherewithal to stop it. Therefore, the best we can do is to vote down the Bill tonight.

Nick Hawkins: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who has made a powerful contribution to the debate, as he always does on home affairs matters.
	It is worth reflecting on the fact that this has been a slightly unusual debate. Conservative Members have made a large number of relatively short, powerful and well-observed speeches that have looked at the Bill itself, at its details and at the report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, whereas a small number of Labour Members have made extremely lengthy speeches in which they ventilated many of their prejudices but hardly talked about the Bill and occasionally mentioned the reservations of the Labour-dominated Select Committee. Basically, they were so embarrassed by the Bill that they wanted to talk about other things that were only tangential to extradition.
	It is worth looking in a little detail at how the Bill came to be in its current form. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has talked about the fact that one needs to have exceptional provisions to deal with the exceptional danger of terrorism. That is something on which we on the Conservative Benches and the Government agree: one should have rare exceptions to deal with an exceptional threat.
	That was the genesis of the framework directive. In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, an urgent meeting of EU Justice and Home Affairs Ministers took place. It discussed the proposal that an arrest warrant would need to be issued in a member state and executed in another member state, and the person arrested would be transported to the originating member state without the protections of ordinary extradition procedure in terrorist cases alone.
	I am indebted to the distinguished jurist and constitutional lawyer Leo Price, QC, for his description of what happened next. Until just before the Laeken summit in December 2001, Italy was not willing to agree to any such European arrest warrant proposal unless the relevant offences were restricted to seven offences plainly of terrorist character. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset set out, we would still be happy for the sole exception of terrorism to be included, but other people, in drafting what was proposed in Europe, decided to see the measure as a vehicle for introducing something else that, until then, the present British Government had always opposed. They wanted to introduce part of the corpus juris that successive British Governments, including the current one, had previously rejected as unacceptably contrary to our common law traditions. Suddenly, we had the list of 32 offences, which were not part of the war against terrorism at all.
	The arrest warrant, in its much wider form, with the implementation of part of the corpus juris, was formally adopted at a meeting of the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council on 13 June this year. It adopted the arrest warrant proposal despite the fact that it was under what is called scrutiny reserve at Westminster. Scrutiny reserve applicable to proposals for EU legislation requires that our Ministers do not agree in Council to proposals for EU legislation that are still under scrutiny by this sovereign Parliament. The scrutiny arrangements do not always work well but Leo Price has concluded that that adoption was in contempt of our parliamentary arrangements for scrutiny reserve.
	Then, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and I expressed in some of the European Committees our concerns about who was going to be regarded under the new arrangements as a competent judicial authority. In that regard the case of the Greek plane-spotters in Kalamata, which many Members have mentioned in interventions and in speeches, is particularly relevant. We remain of the view that, if one cannot say who is a competent judicial authority, the proposal is extremely dangerous. In many other countries covered by category 1 of the proposed legislation, those who take the role of an investigative magistrate in another jurisdiction—a juge d'instruction, or something of that ilk—will be regarded automatically as a competent judicial authority, and no British court will have the right then to intervene to protest about the way in which such an arrest warrant has been issued. The whole burden of all that we Conservatives have said this evening is that we ought to preserve the protection for British subjects whereby a British court—and, potentially, the Secretary of State—has a reserve power to scrutinise what is going on before somebody is simply arrested and taken away to face a foreign court that perhaps has a wholly inappropriate system of justice, in which there is no presumption of innocence.
	I know that the Minister always speaks very softly when introducing proposals, however controversial they are, but we did not find today's soft words of much reassurance. We want provisions such as those that we have discussed to be included in the Bill as safeguards, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and many others have said. The Minister's soft words were obviously reassuring to some Labour Members; indeed, so soft were they that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was fast asleep for several minutes of his speech, before a message from the Whip woke her up. On a serious note, there needs to be sufficient maturity of criminal justice in all the countries to which part 1, in particular, relates.
	The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the distinguished Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, set out its very powerful reservations about this legislation. Conservative Members share many of those reservations. He referred to the vagueness of some of the crimes—such as sabotage and environmental crime—set out in the framework directive consisting of 32 crimes. He rightly said that a British judge's becoming a mere cipher was not acceptable. We agree with his Committee's suggestion that the proposal should be amended to allow a district judge to scrutinise anything put forward in such an arrest warrant.
	The hon. Gentleman said that, instead of a reduction to 12 months, we ought to go back to the proposal for a three-year limitation. He also reminded the House that, in practice, courts have often refused extradition under current law—even to EU countries—and so have successive Home Secretaries of different parties. As the hon. Gentleman rightly asked, what has changed to lead us to throw all caution to the wind? In our view, nothing has changed to allow us to discard those safeguards.
	The hon. Gentleman further pointed out that the proposed EU arrest warrant requires inadequate information, and yet again we agree. We need a much more detailed warrant, and even for category 2 countries—the hon. Gentleman talked about clause 83—the Government's freedom to exempt is far too wide. He suggested a restriction in respect of signatories to the convention on extradition, or of bilateral extradition treaty countries. That is a matter to which we shall undoubtedly return in Committee. The hon. Gentleman also rightly said that proper legal advice should be given to anyone before they consent to extradition from this country. Again, we regard that as an enormously helpful safeguard.
	The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), who spoke for his party, said that in his view, the Bill is unacceptable in its current form, and that he wants to improve it. He pointed out that many signatory countries to the framework directive do not in fact have the legal safeguards that we enjoy. In Greece, for example, there is no legal aid. It is also important to protect the presumption of innocence, which does not exist in many other countries. However, the hon. Gentleman's main objection was that the dual criminality rule was abolished for category 1 countries. We entirely agree about that. He talked, as did the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, about vague and nebulous offences, and ended by saying firmly that he wanted the Bill completely changed because it was unacceptable in its current form. We will be watching with interest what he and his colleagues do in the Division Lobby tonight.
	The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) said that the law needed updating. He wanted the Government to address his points, which were in some ways similar to those made by the Home Affairs Committee. However, he said that he is not always reassured when he sees the rest of the European Union's judicial systems in operation, something that I thought very significant coming from a former Solicitor-General in this Government. The thought crossed my mind that perhaps when the hon. and learned Gentleman was in office he advised against the introduction of this sort of measure, which is why he now finds himself on the Back Benches. Perhaps we will never know, but he rightly reminded us that British courts have always taken a very robust view about these matters. He stressed, again quite rightly, that clause 21 on the human rights safeguards will prove very important. In summary, he felt that he could not give the Bill an unequivocal welcome.
	In a powerful contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), warned against the extension of the European state. He used the parallel of what had happened in the past over the Single European Act. He quite rightly said that the Bill is an attack on civil liberties and that there has been no effective rebuttal of what the Law Lord, Lord Scott, had written about xenophobia and that something as simple as distributing a Biggles book or the Old Testament could be regarded in some countries as xenophobia.
	The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), in what I thought was a slightly schizophrenic speech, first said that he welcomed the Bill in general terms but that he did not like politicians being involved in the judicial process in general terms. He pointed out that the Home Secretary has had problems on such issues as mandatory life sentences. He said that he was speaking as a former lawyer; he felt that there had been problems with the Pinochet case and that the legislation could be improved. However, he went on to say—and this is where I thought he contradicted himself—that the extradition system, purely as a creature of the 19th century, should not preserve the reliance on the judiciary that Lord Palmerston had used in the Don Pacifico case in 1850. If the hon. Gentleman believes that politicians are interfering too much and that we ought to rely on the judiciary, it is not really logical to say that we have to move away from the protections of the judiciary by which our citizens have been protected since the 19th century. The hon. Gentleman's attitude was that it does not matter about protecting British citizens who will be extradited—he was more concerned about people being extradited to this country. The Bill deals with both eventualities, and we must preserve the protection for our citizens.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon pointed out that the Bill had been comprehensively demolished in the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. My hon. Friend said that the Government are careless with the freedoms of our citizens. He talked about the cases of people who should have been deported being delayed, not because of delays in the judicial system but because the Home Secretary had not decided on cases in which appeals were rejected by the House of Lords as far back as December 2001. He said that it was not good enough for the Government to say that the judicial system is slow; he pointed out that the Pinochet case had been heard three times up to the House of Lords in 15 months. If a case has sufficient political priority, it gets heard.
	My hon. Friend drew attention to the year zero kind of thinking on the Government Benches which says that just because something is hallowed by tradition, it is automatically wrong. He said that we must not disregard the protections that have been built up over the generations for British citizens. He talked about the dangers of the Bill being used for allegations of war crimes, as in the Pinochet case. He wondered whether Ministers might be worried if some other judicial authority one day decided that they were guilty of war crimes in relation to the bombing of Kosovo.
	My hon. Friend also rightly pointed out that many of the offences in the list of 32 could and should be fully defined in the Bill. In response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) about definitions, my hon. Friend said that we need the dual criminality safeguard that has always existed. In the past, our divisional courts have had a problem accepting even French or Spanish jurisdiction. The safeguard should be preserved.
	The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) maundered on for about a half an hour saying nothing very much. However, he engaged in an interesting exchange with the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), who speaks for the Scottish National party. It seemed that she and the hon. Gentleman were in greater agreement with one another than he was with the Minister.

Nick Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: No, I am pressed for time so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me I shall not give way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) talked about the history of mutual recognition and the Cassis de Dijon case. He rightly pointed out that our sovereign Parliament had no say in drawing up the list of offences and will have no say in any future changes to the list. As he said, Parliament should object to that.
	The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) said that a sifting process was necessary and that hon. Members were right to express reservations about how that would work in practice. He expressed concern about the lack of counterbalance in the measure.
	My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) exposed the lack of logic in the Minister's case on the death penalty. My hon. Friend expressed concern that the Council of Ministers had the power to change the categories of offence when Parliament had no scrutiny of that process.
	The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) said that the concerns of the civil liberties lobby could not be ridden over roughshod. He expressed anxiety that various matters were not dealt with in the Bill; for example, diplomatic immunity and the death penalty in Rwanda. He shared some of the reservations expressed about the Bill by the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
	The hon. Gentleman did not refer to any of the differences between category 1 and category 2 extradition, but he believed that the provisions were needed to deal with the costa del crime problem. May I point out to him that category 2 extradition, with which we are happy, would deal with that? He really should study in greater detail the comments of the Select Committee on category 1 extradition. That is the real problem. The hon. Gentleman also referred to Guantanamo bay, mercenaries and political cases although I do not think that they had much to do with the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said that, like my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, he supports the provisions on category 2 extradition, but not those on category 1. He rightly pointed out that to tinker with the current rules is extremely dangerous. He talked about the belief of some writers in the French press that terrorists operate in London with impunity. Before the Government start threatening the safety and security of my constituents and those of other hon. Members, many people would probably want them to deal with the difficulties in deporting some of the mullahs who preach treason.
	The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) ventilated his lawyer-bashing tendencies and said that previous legislation had not worked successfully. He and his colleagues are always the first to say that everyone must have the right to representation, but it seems from his speech that people have that right only if he and his colleagues agree with them.

Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: No, I am coming to the conclusion of my speech.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Witney in the final contribution to the debate, said that he was proud to be a member of the Select Committee that produced the report. He drew attention to the fact that it is almost entirely impossible to deport the type of people we need to deport in order to protect our security. He referred to the recent cases of Soering and Chahal. He showed the contradiction in Government policy as regards the problems with the Human Rights Act 1998, to which we have already referred, in terms of delay, cost and injustice. Like so many speakers, my hon. Friend supported the safeguards that would be provided by district judges and the scrutiny of the Home Secretary.
	There are many things to which we shall return in Committee. We need to press hard so that the Government make the changes that will be forced on them by another place. The Bill is dangerous; it goes much too far and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, part 2 would have achieved all that the Government wanted. Part 1 should be anathema to all British citizens.

Bob Ainsworth: Although spiced with prejudice and Eurosceptism, the debate has been thoughtful and serious, as it should be on such a serious issue. Although the Conservative party has decided not table an amendment or to vote against the Bill, one thing is clear: our present extradition arrangements are unsatisfactory, and I have not heard a single Opposition Member say that that they can be allowed to continue. It is simply not right that it can take more than five years to extradite a person accused of a serious crime, especially when the requesting state is another EU country. Of course there must be proper protections for those who are subject to an extradition request, but that should not extend to their being allowed to launch appeal after appeal, all on the same point, for the sole purpose of frustrating the process.

John Maples: rose—

Bob Ainsworth: I will try to give way to the hon. Gentleman in a while.
	The Bill will ensure that no one can be extradited where the request is politically motivated, where the double jeopardy rule applies or where the fugitive's medical condition—an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen)—would make it unjust. On conviction in absentia cases, we will extradite only where the fugitive can be sure of a retrial. We will not extradite unless we are certain that the death penalty will not be carried out. Finally and very importantly, extradition cannot take place where it would be incompatible with the fugitive's human rights.
	Many detailed points have been made during the debate, and I shall try to respond to at least some of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) raised the issue of the internet and asked whether someone who put neo-Nazi propaganda on a German website would be liable for extradition under a European arrest warrant. In those circumstances, the court would probably take the view that the conduct had occurred outside the requesting state and apply the dual criminality test. Since holocaust denial is not an offence in the United Kingdom, the dual criminality requirement would not be met and extradition could not take place.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who is not now in his place, asked whether the Bill would extend to British overseas territories. The relevant provisions, with modifications as appropriate, can be extended to British overseas territories by virtue of clauses 174 and 175, but that will apply only to category 2 procedures, not to the European arrest warrant.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead asked about the language in which a European arrest warrant may be sought. Article 11.2 of the framework decision provides that the person who is arrested for the purpose of extradition under a European arrest warrant will have a right to be assisted by legal counsel and any interpreter needed in accordance with the national law of the executing member state.
	The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead raised the issue of diplomatic immunity—one on one side of the argument and one on the other. Nothing in the Bill will affect state or diplomatic immunity. That may reassure the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and it may be a matter of concern to my hon. Friend, who may want to raise the issue further with us, but it goes far wider than the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) raised a number of concerns, as did the Home Affairs Committee in its report. Those concerns are shared by many of my hon. Friends, who have broadly supported the Bill, but have none the less sought reassurances in some areas. They include my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas), as well as other hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	In relation to speciality, extending the list—whether in relation to other offences or to other states—and effective oversight and scrutiny arrangements in the House, I hope that we will show in Committee to the satisfaction of hon. Members that we have covered those issues. Alternatively, as I understand the point made about not trusting honeyed words, we will genuinely listen to hon. Members' concerns, and, where they remain, we will seek to make changes to the Bill in relation to the framework document.
	The Bill contains clear safeguards on the death penalty, on whether people will be extradited to face execution, on whether people could be extradited in contravention of their human rights, and on whether people could be extradited for reasons of their political opinions. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) shakes his head. I know from his opening speech that he has read the Bill, so I refer him to clause 13 on extraneous considerations, under which extradition will not be allowed of people being prosecuted or punished for crimes that are accounted for by their race, religion, nationality or political opinions. Extradition is specifically barred when those cases apply, and it is specifically barred in category 1 and category 2 when a death sentence might be carried out. It is specifically barred, too, under clause 21, when a person's human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights would not be fully protected.

John Maples: If the hon. Gentleman has such confidence in the fairness of the judicial systems of all our European partners, why is clause 13 necessary?

Bob Ainsworth: Let us identify what changes are in the Bill, and what changes are not in the Bill. Clearly, there are two changes. One is the speeding-up of the process, which is greater in relation to European partners with whom we have very porous borders that allow law-abiding citizens and criminals to travel freely between our jurisdictions. The other is the abolition of dual criminality in relation to the list offences. Those are the only fundamental changes that are being made. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety clearly demonstrated at the start of the debate, the prima facie requirement for evidence was removed a long time ago.

John Burnett: I, among others, referred to paragraph 31 of the Select Committee's report and to the suggestion that, if there is dual criminality, the matter should be referred to the Home Secretary for his decision. What I—and, I believe, other Members—asked was what practical steps were necessary to achieve that end.

Bob Ainsworth: We will have the opportunity to talk about that in great detail in Committee, and I hope that we do so. In my opinion, the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised would undermine the position of mutual recognition. He suggested in pursuance of that, and was supported in it by the right hon. Member for West Dorset, that we could get round some of our current problems with a little ingenuity. All that we needed to do was to frame our request in a different way and, all of a sudden, the walls of Jericho would come tumbling down and we would not face some of the serious problems that exist with regard to the current extradition law. However, that is simply not the case. Some countries in the EU will not extradite for fiscal offences. One can frame the extradition warrant however one likes, but they will not do that. Under the current arrangements, they will not extradite their own nationals, and it does not matter what heinous crime they may have committed in this country. Some countries will not extradite their own nationals, and no amount of ingenuity can get us round that.
	Some countries have statutes of limitation. When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety opened the debate, he pointed out some of the injustices that have occurred because of those statutes of limitation. Some crimes are not reported until many years after they are committed, but it is wholly wrong that people should escape justice simply because there is a statute of limitation in the country to which they have fled and because we cannot require them to return to this country.

David Cameron: rose—

Oliver Letwin: rose—

Bob Ainsworth: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for West Dorset in a moment.
	We will discuss in Committee the issues that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) raised, and I hope that I can satisfy him on them. However, I was a bit concerned about the tone of his reception for the Bill. It was totally at odds with the Liberal Democrats' submission to the consultation. They then said that
	Xthe removal of judicial review and habeas corpus . . . are, we believe, adequately compensated for by the duty on the courts to consider the ECHR implications of extradition, provided there can be no derogation from ECHR rights. The proposed appeals system would allow for a fair review of the case on both points of law and fact."
	I seriously hope that we have not seen a dramatic shift to a Eurosceptic position by the Liberal Democrats. Such news would go far wider than the Bill.

Oliver Letwin: I entirely welcome the Liberal Democrats' damascene conversion on this matter. The Minister is being thoroughly reasonable, so will he clarify one point? Were his earlier remarks intended to suggest that the bar on political opinions being a cause of extradition under part 1 would override the inclusion of xenophobia in the list of 32 offences?

Bob Ainsworth: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, clause 13 contains a bar on extradition. It does not say that there may be a bar, because it is clear that there will be a bar on extradition on the ground of
	Xrace, religion, nationality or political opinions".
	That point is quite definite. It is in our law and applies to our citizens. It is wholly wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the bar is anything other than a bar. A British judge will sit in a court and consider the case. If he considers that it involves issues concerning a person's political opinion, he will not issue an arrest warrant. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman has great difficulty with that.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised some of the issues that many of my hon. Friends raised, including speciality, scrutiny and the politically motivated crime that we have just discussed. However, the overwhelming point that he made was his view that the problem with part 1 resulted from the fact that the Government were involved in a great, secret conspiracy to which they were not prepared to admit. He suggested that it had come about as a result of 11 September. However, let me make it clear to him that the treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and the subsequent temporary special council agreed that mutual recognition of judicial decisions would become the cornerstone of judicial co-operation. That included fast-tack extradition arrangements. The British Government are leading on the issue of mutual recognition as an alternative to a European corpus juris. There is no secret about that and our approach came about long before 11 September.
	Opposition Members demanded that no one should be extradited for conduct that would not be criminal in Britain. I think we are entitled to ask them a couple of questions that flow from that. First, a Frenchman who commits a crime in Britain that is not illegal in France can expect to be put on trial if he is arrested here. Why should he be entitled to escape justice simply because he has crossed the frontier? Secondly, why should someone be able to commit an offence, such as incitement to racial hatred or fraudulent trading, in this country with impunity simply because he can get to an EU country that does not have a corresponding offence? The Opposition have either avoided the questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State or they have effectively said that that situation is okay.

John Maples: rose—

Bob Ainsworth: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once and I am not doing it again.
	Those Opposition Members who were prepared to answer the question seemed to say that the problem did not matter. I wonder whether the victims of crime feel the same way.
	EU countries are mature democracies. All of them have signed up to the European convention on human rights. In an age when people, including criminals, can move freely about the EU, we should be prepared to operate on a principle of mutual recognition. We should not prevent extradition simply because of the lack of an exact equivalent offence. We need to recognise the other benefits that the introduction of the European arrest warrant will bring. It will end the ability of other European countries to refuse to extradite their nationals; it will end the refusal by other European countries to extradite for fiscal offences; and it will end a situation in which extradition cannot happen because another European country's statute of limitations has expired on a particular crime. We are well into the 21st century. There can be no excuse for continuing to use procedures that have largely been unchanged since the 19th century and that work against the interests of the victims of crime and the interests of justice.
	The Bill will modernise and simplify our extradition arrangements. It retains proper safeguards for fugitives. We will discuss the issues raised by my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and take them seriously. We are prepared to respond flexibly if they can show that there is a problem, but I think that the Bill contains many of the answers. I hope that I will be able to convince them of that.
	We cannot ignore the menace of serious international crime. We need the tools to combat it. The Bill will be an important part of that armoury. I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time: —
	The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 146.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.

EXTRADITION BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Extradition Bill—
	Committal
	(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	(2) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 21st January 2003.
	(3) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	(4) Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
	(6) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings (7)
	Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments or any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
	The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 149.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	EXTRADITION BILL [MONEY]
	Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Extradition Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(a) any expenditure incurred by the Lord Chancellor under the Act;
	(b) amounts ordered to be paid in respect of expenses incurred in connection with extradition proceedings;
	(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.
	CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
	Order for Second Reading read.
	Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.
	Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
	CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
	Order for Second Reading read.
	Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.
	Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

Major Accident Hazards Involving Dangerous Substances

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 15275/01, draft Directive, and No. 12530/02, amended draft Directive, amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances; considers that the proposed amendments would achieve the objectives of the Directive; takes account of studies carried out by the Commission on carcinogens and substances dangerous to the environment and recent major incidents involving dangerous substances; and welcomes the strengthening of protection standards for human health and the environment.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Environmental Protection

That the draft Air Quality (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Terms And Conditions Of Employment

That the draft Flexible Working (Procedural Requirements) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

INCOME TAX (EARNINGS AND PENSIONS) BILL

Ordered,
	That the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Bill be proceeded with as a tax law rewrite Bill.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

THALIDOMIDE TRUST

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Jonathan Djanogly: The Thalidomide Trust, which is based in my constituency, was established in 1973 to administer ongoing compensation offered initially by the Distillers company to the victims of thalidomide. The trust is responsible for supporting all the British survivors of the thalidomide tragedy, currently numbering some 450 individuals.
	Many of the beneficiaries, most of whom are aged between 39 and 42, are now raising families and engaging in a variety of careers and activities. To give some idea of the severity of the disabilities faced by the survivors, about 10 have no hands, arms or legs; a further 100 have either no arms or no legs, or so-called flipper arms or legs; and the majority of the remainder have short limbs, particularly arms, and hands with no thumbs.
	It is important to point out that as the victims age, their needs are changing. Many are experiencing deterioration of their health and medical condition, which is both making life today more difficult and causing them to worry about the future. For example, some are finding that, because the lack of some limbs has caused them to overuse others, arthritis and similar complaints are gravely compounding the disabilities that they have worked long and hard to overcome.
	It is worth pointing out that thalidomide victims do not fit the typical description of a disabled person—someone who has all their limbs, but requires the use of a wheelchair. Thalidomide victims have unique needs—for example, they might be unable to reach buttons at ticket barriers, or to work locks and catches, or to carry loads owing to their having deformed shoulder joints. Those problems will not diminish with the passing of time; in fact they will certainly become worse. They were a factor in the generous decision made in 2000 by Diageo—a successor company to Distillers—to pay a further #32.5 million to the trust at present day values.
	The trust was set up as a charity because it was believed that its objects, being charitable, would result in all distributions made to beneficiaries being tax exempt, but that proved not to be the case. However, the then Government agreed that there had been a genuine misunderstanding about the tax treatment of the payments made to beneficiaries by the trust. On that basis, in 1974, the Government paid a sum of #5 million to the trust to offset the tax payable on distributions. Further payments totalling #12.8 million were made to the trust in 1975, 1979 and 1996 by Distillers and its successor company, Guinness.
	It is important to note that each time a request was made by the trust to the Government, such a request was made on the basis of offsetting the effect of tax on the distributions of the trust, and the same formula for calculating the offset was used in each case. Another important point is that previous Governments' payments to the trust do not set any sort of precedent for other charities, which might give the Government reason not to wish to give the traditional relief to the Thalidomide Trust again. That is because a class action compensation settlement being made today would normally be established as a structured settlement, with payments in all normal circumstances being tax exempt.
	Even taking previous Governments' tax payments into account, it could not be said that the trust has not paid any tax—indeed, although Governments have paid #12.8 million to the trust since 1974, they have received taxes of more than #15.5 million from the trust, and are likely to take another #20 million in tax receipts between 2002 and 2022, thus providing a Treasury profit over the years of about #23 million. In practice, about #12 million of that tax has been recovered by beneficiaries claiming tax allowances, but that still leaves the Government approximately #11 million in profit.
	The tax position of thalidomide beneficiaries is that victims without other sources of income are able to reclaim the difference between the tax that the trust deducts from distributions to them and their personal allowance of the basic rate of tax. That means that beneficiaries can achieve tax reclaims typically a year after they have received the payments, although, unfortunately, it is believed by the trust that many of the beneficiaries do not take advantage of that, either because of their lack of understanding of the system, or because of the need to employ accountants to prepare their tax returns for them.
	To return to the current position, if the formula that was applied to previous extensions to the original Distillers covenant were to be used, the Government should now be paying the trust #6.1 million. The Government have implied that the trust has a significant pot of money, and that that in itself is a reason for it to pay tax. Although the covenanted sums may indeed sound significant, they are relatively modest compared with many modern-day court settlements, and in any event are less following recent stock market falls. The money needs to last for a long time, and current annual payments to victims range from between #5,000 and #25,000 a year, the average annual payment being only #11,000. Unfortunately, however, on 30 July this year the Chancellor turned down the trust's request to be treated in the way that every past Government had allowed. As a result, no Treasury payment is now being offered in respect of the recent Diageo covenant. The decision has now been confirmed in a letter that I received from the Chancellor this morning.
	Many people, including the trustees and certainly the victims themselves—some of whom are here today—many of their supporters across the country and, indeed, over 80 Members of Parliament who signed early-day motion 107 have been extremely perturbed and disappointed by the Government's decision.
	The Government's reasons for the rejection are set out in a letter from the Chancellor dated 30 July this year. The first general point is the Chancellor's statement that
	Xthe Government greatly values the work of the Trust in supporting the victims of the Thalidomide tragedy".
	How well that claim sits with the fact that this is the first Government to refuse tax relief is a judgment that I will leave others to make. I think it worth noting, however, that my predecessor, the right hon. John Major, first wrote to the Chancellor requesting the granting of relief on 14 February 2001. He sent a further letter on 30 April 2001, asking for a reply.
	Following my own election in June 2001, I asked for an update by way of a written question on 18 July 2001, and then wrote to the Chancellor asking for replies to Mr. Major's letter on 32 January 2002, and again on 15 April 2002. Finally I asked for a reply by way of a further written question on 10 June 2002, to which I received a one-word reply from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, namely XShortly". Given that this was hardly a new issue, having been a settled course of action since 1974, I feel that the Government's 17-month delay in responding sits uneasily with their claim to value the trust's work. None the less, I shall address the Chancellor's key contention as set out in his letter. He wrote
	XThe Trust put forward the same case in 1995 and, although the Government of the day did make a payment in 1996 with #7 million, this was on the explicit understanding (made clear in the Department of Health press release at the time) that this was a 'final' and 'once and for all' payment, made in recognition of the unique and tragic circumstances surrounding the Thalidomide disaster and not to be offset for taxation."
	I have previously explained to Members that, although the circumstances are certainly unique and tragic, they are almost certainly ongoing. Indeed, the trust may need to last for another 40 years or more until there are no survivors left. Furthermore, each Government payment to the trust has been stated to be full and final in respect of the taxation arising from each further covenant, and the situation here is exactly the same.
	I have now received a copy of the original letter from the Prime Minister's private secretary, dated 8 November 1974. It states
	XThe Inland Revenue made it clear all along that they could give no assurance that all payments from the Trust would be tax free, although clearly there has been some genuine misunderstanding on this point. In view of this, the Government decided to make a once-and-for-all capital payment of #5 million to the Trust, which will increase the income available to the Trust in a way, which should at least offset the effects of taxation. It will, of course, be for the Trustees to deal with this additional assistance to individual children in accordance with the terms of the Trust. In this way, the Government hopes to ensure that the Thalidomide children are not prejudiced and at the same time avoid any possible doubt as to the tax consideration applying to any settlement if any comparable tragic case should arise in the future."
	The point, therefore, is that every previous Government payment has been treated as a once-and-for-all settlement in relation to this matter. For the Government to say that because the Chancellor in 1995 also stated that the then new covenant should be final means that a payment should not be made simply does not fit with the facts. I also note that in 1974 the then Government saw their method of repaying tax as a way of differentiating their treatment of thalidomide from that of other charities, so as not to set a precedent.

Michael Howard: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his comprehensive demolition of the principal reason advanced by the Chancellor in justification of his decision. Does my hon. Friend share with me some sympathy for the Paymaster General, who has been placed in an impossible position this evening by the refusal of the Chancellor to accept my invitation to come to the House personally this evening to defend his mean-minded decision; and will my hon. Friend accept my assurance that the next Conservative Government will make in full the payment to the trust that should have been made by the Chancellor this year in accordance with the precedents that my hon. Friend has explained?

Jonathan Djanogly: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that tremendous intervention. I am sure that many victims across the country will be very grateful for his words and I thank him on their behalf.
	The UK has the second largest population of thalidomide victims world wide. The country with the largest such population is Germany, with 2,851 registered survivors. After the UK comes Japan, which has 317 survivors. It is important to realise that, of those three nations, the UK Government are alone in never having agreed directly to compensate thalidomide victims. Indeed, looking at it in that way, not only have the UK Government not had to pay a penny to thalidomide victims, but they have been receiving tax revenues from the payments made by drugs companies for the welfare of victims. I ask the Minister: how fair is that?
	All payments made to thalidomiders in Germany are tax free. For a more local comparison, I refer the Minister to section 192 of the Irish Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, which states that any handicap that can be linked with the taking by the individual's mother during her pregnancy of preparations containing thalidomide is to be exempt from income tax and not to be reckoned in computing total income. Accordingly, not only does the current Government's position run totally contrary to the spirit and practice of Government policy since 1974 in terms of dealing with the effects of this terrible tragedy, but their position runs contrary to the practice of every other country I have been able to find, which all basically follow the principle that Government should not make a profit from the victims of thalidomide.
	I urge the Government to think again on this matter. Please look at how the victims are still struggling by reason of no fault of their own; look at what every Government since 1974 have done for the victims; look at the tax income that the UK has received from the victims, despite Government payments to the trust; look at the fact that the British Government have never directly given a penny towards the welfare of these victims; look at the fact that every other country not only does not tax its own victims, but gives them taxpayers' money; and then please look again at the Chancellor's mean-spirited and factually incorrect response to this sensible and fair request. The eyes of the country are on the Government. Please do the right thing for the victims of this terrible ongoing tragedy.

Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) on securing tonight's Adjournment debate. As Members can probably tell, I have a very bad cold, so I hope that my voice will hold up during my reply.
	I intend to explain to the House the decision of the previous Government in 1996 according to the documentation, the basis on which that decision was taken, why we believe that it was correct, and why it should stand. Although a vital piece of the jigsaw was missing from the hon. Gentleman's contribution, it was otherwise excellent, and the whole House will want strongly to add its voice to the points that he made—[Interruption.] I caution Conservative Members against commenting until they know what their Government's policy, which is the one in place now, was.
	The position is quite clear, and the hon. Gentleman explained it in great detail. First, he noted the incredibly important work that the trust does, and its valuable role in supporting the victims of the tragedy—remarkable people who are now approaching middle age. The trust has played a valuable role in enabling them to lead fulfilling lives. As the hon. Gentleman also pointed out, over the years, successive Governments have made significant contributions to the trust. In 1974, the then Labour Government contributed some #5 million in recognition that, in terms of the original settlement, confusion over the tax position may have changed the decision on how much money was paid into the trust. They made a subsequent contribution in 1978, in recognition of the new beneficiaries within the trust's remit, and in fairness to the original payment. That payment was in respect of the setting up of the trust, and of the actual amount that would have been settled. From 1974, the tax position was clear, and I shall explain to the House what it is now.
	In 1996, the then Conservative Government made a further payment, but the hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that it was made on the same basis as that made in 1974. In fact, it was less than it might have been, had it been made on the same basis as the 1974 payment. The hon. Gentleman and the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), said that the Government have abandoned an important tax concession, which they have not, that there is a long-standing convention that the tax should be disregarded, which there is not, and that not reinstating the tax concession to the trust was reprehensible. Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems conveniently to have forgotten the arrangement made by his Government, and the terms of the settlement to the trust in 1996.
	I shall explain the details to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The then Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out in a letter the basis on which the #7 million payment was to be made to the trust. The letter states very clearly that the payment was not being made for the offset of tax treatment; however, it went further. It said that any payment would
	Xnot represent any offset for tax, and that future support for the Trust will be a matter solely between the Trustees and Guinness",
	now Diageo. The letter continues:
	XI would be very concerned if the Trustees and Guinness assumed that the taxpayer would automatically pay a proportion of the cost"
	for the trust. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon pointed out, following discussions between the then Chief Secretary and the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), the press release from the Department of Health said that a once and for all payment would be made to the trust.

Howard Flight: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Dawn Primarolo: No, I will not give way.
	In 1974, the tax position was contentious and the Government responded, but by 1996, the position was clear. There is no confusion. Let me remind the House exactly what tax is due. As the trust is a charity, it claims a repayment of the tax paid on its investment income. [Hon. Members: X Who wrote this?"] We could ask who wrote the disgraceful contributions that seek political advancement from a sensitive and tragic case. [Interruption.] When Ministers in the previous Conservative Government looked at the evidence—

Michael Howard: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Dawn Primarolo: No.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: No, I will not give way.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Paymaster General is replying to an Adjournment debate brought by a single hon. Gentleman. She is entitled to give a reply to him.

Dawn Primarolo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	The allegations are made in the press release. Conservative Members seek to advance them on the Floor of the House this evening with no reference to the facts of the case. As the trust is a charity, it claims a repayment of the tax paid on its investment income. Some payments made by the trust are taxed. The fact is well recognised. However, there is sometimes a misunderstanding—I put it generously—about the exact process. How the trust distributes its finances on income support and capital grants means that there is a difference in the tax treatment. Capital grants are not subject to taxation, and that accounts for 57 per cent. of the total distributions. Income distributions are, under certain circumstances, which accounts for 43 per cent. of the distributions.
	We can give an example of what would happen on income distributions. Non-taxpayers can reclaim the full amount of tax as a tax credit. Starting rate taxpayers—the 10 per cent. taxpayers—can reclaim #24 of the #34. Basic rate taxpayers can reclaim a proportion—#12—of that money, and higher rate taxpayers cannot. The central argument advanced by the Thalidomide Trust is that although its members, some 450, may well be entitled to the tax credit, they are not claiming it. This is about the money that the individuals get. The Government have said quite clearly that they are prepared to work with the trust to ensure that those who are entitled to the tax credit get it back. That is precisely what is in the fact sheet produced by the Thalidomide Trust.
	This is an important debate about how we take forward the principles of taxation and support for the victims of thalidomide and how we treat others who, in tragic circumstances, find themselves in the same position. The circumstances are not unique.
	The Opposition refuse to accept the good, sound decisions that they took when they were in government—

Howard Flight: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Dawn Primarolo: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman; this is an Adjournment debate.
	The Opposition invent the facts of the case, missing out the inconvenient ones, and then try—unforgivably—to make political capital out of—[Hon. Members: XThat is a disgrace."] If anything is a disgrace, it is the press release issued today in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) who clearly does not know the facts of the case.

Michael Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be good enough to confirm, first, that there is no convention of the House that prevents an hon. Member from giving way when replying to an Adjournment debate; and, secondly, that it is the convention of the House to give way when accusations of the kind that the right hon. Lady has just made in respect of another hon. Member are so made?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) gave way to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). That was his privilege. It is the same for the Paymaster General. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that in an Adjournment debate there is an allocated time for the hon. Member who initiates the debate and for the Minister to reply. The Paymaster General has time to consider—[Interruption.] Order. I am trying to point out to hon. Members that an Adjournment debate held at the end of the day is not similar to a normal debate.

Dawn Primarolo: Opposition Members do not like rebuttal on the Floor of the House; they prefer to make their accusations in press releases that cannot be answered.
	The Government take the view that we should constantly and actively seek to support the Thalidomide Trust, including working closely with it to ensure that those who are entitled to a tax refund receive it. We are prepared—

Jonathan Djanogly: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

John McDonnell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Dawn Primarolo: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Huntingdon in a moment—[Hon. Members: XWhy?"] It is his Adjournment debate.
	We stand ready to work with the trust. The Government are also clear that funding for the national health service and for social services, as well as the remarkable increase in that spending, ensures that we can support all those people, as well those in the Thalidomide Trust in challenging—[Hon. Members: XGive way."] I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
	This Adjournment debate should be a rational discussion of how best to support individuals and use the resources available. If Conservative Members look back at what they did in government, they will see that that was the case.

Jonathan Djanogly: If it is the intention of the Government to hold a rational debate, will the right hon. Lady confirm that it will not take her two years to respond to the next letter?

Dawn Primarolo: In all modesty, I think that I have done remarkably well in trying to conduct a reasonable debate in the face of outrageous accusations and constant barracking—
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at one minute to Eleven o'clock.